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. It discloses key behavioral traits: caching behavior (1-hour cache, refresh parameter), output structure (score, risk bucket, confidence level), and methodology disclosure. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions, or error handling, but covers essential operational aspects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by methodology details and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains scoring, the third describes output, and the fourth covers caching. No wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to explain the output (score, risk bucket, confidence level, methodology disclosure) and caching behavior. However, it lacks details on error cases, permissions, or rate limits, which are important for a prediction tool with potential computational overhead.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'refresh=true to recompute,' which slightly clarifies the refresh parameter's purpose. No additional syntax or format details are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Predict which files are most likely to contain bugs.' It specifies the multi-signal scoring methodology (git churn, fix-commit ratio, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on bug prediction rather than analysis, detection, or other code quality tasks.

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: 'Cached for 1 hour; use refresh=true to recompute.' This indicates when to force recomputation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_risk_hotspots' or 'scan_code_smells' among siblings, which limits the score.

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