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 describes the mapping process and output format (domain ownership and relevance scores), but doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid queries. The 'no source code' statement is useful behavioral context, but more operational details would be helpful.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains the core functionality and output, while the second provides clear usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 complexity (business question mapping to domain taxonomy), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the format of the returned 'domain ownership and relevance scores' or provide examples of appropriate business questions. For a tool with no output schema, more detail about the return structure would be beneficial.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'business question' which aligns with the query parameter description, but provides no extra details about format, examples, or domain-specific constraints.

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 ('Map a business question to domain taxonomy') and resources ('returns domain ownership and relevance scores'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by stating 'no source code' - which differentiates it from many code analysis tools in the sibling list like get_call_graph, get_dead_code, etc.

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 usage guidance with 'Use when you need to know WHICH DOMAIN owns specific functionality' - this gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The 'no source code' statement also implicitly suggests when NOT to use it (when looking for actual code).

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