trace-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the extraction method ('pattern matching (no LLM calls)'), idempotency handling ('Skips already-mined sessions unless force=true'), and the types of content extracted. It could improve by mentioning potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics, but it covers essential operational traits well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, method, and a key usage note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, how it operates, and a critical usage scenario. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from briefly mentioning the format or nature of the extracted decisions to set expectations, though this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implicitly referencing the 'force' parameter in the usage context. It does not provide additional semantics, syntax, or examples for parameters like 'project_root' or 'min_confidence', resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('mine', 'extracts') and resources ('Claude Code / Claw Code session logs'), specifying the content types targeted (architectural decisions, tech choices, bug root causes, preferences). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'discover_claude_sessions' or 'query_decisions' by focusing on extraction via pattern matching rather than discovery or querying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage with the 'force' parameter explanation ('Skips already-mined sessions unless force=true'), indicating when to use this tool for re-mining. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'search_sessions' or 'query_decisions', which could help differentiate further among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.