trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it combines multiple search/analysis techniques, returns specific outputs (verdict, confidence, ranked targets, provenance, scaffold hints, next tool recommendations), and serves as a routing mechanism. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like computational cost, session dependencies, or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a complex tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key components. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second details the return values, and the third provides critical usage guidance. While dense, it avoids redundancy and efficiently communicates complex functionality in three sentences.

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 complexity (multi-technique routing) and lack of output schema, the description does well by specifying return values (verdict, confidence, targets, provenance, hints, next tools). However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral constraints (e.g., performance, dependencies) or example outputs. It's largely complete but has minor gaps for a sophisticated tool.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'task' interacts with the combined techniques or how 'skip_risk' affects outputs). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.

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 as an 'opening-move router for new tasks' that combines multiple techniques (BM25/PageRank search, session journal analysis, framework-aware suggestions, risk assessment, budget advising) into one call. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it should be called 'FIRST on a new task' to prevent 'empty-result hallucination chain,' making it distinct from other planning, analysis, or execution tools in the list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST on a new task to break the empty-result hallucination chain.' This clearly indicates it's the initial step for new tasks rather than alternatives like 'plan_refactoring,' 'plan_batch_change,' or other analysis tools. The instruction 'FIRST' strongly implies when-not scenarios (e.g., not for ongoing tasks or specific analyses covered by siblings).

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