trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Rebuild' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this is resource-intensive, requires specific permissions, affects system performance, or has side effects. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that likely modifies indexes.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool that performs index rebuilding (likely a write operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'co-change index' means, what the tool returns, potential performance implications, or success/failure conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'window_days'. The tool description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without providing additional value.

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 action ('Rebuild') and the resource ('co-change index from git history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_co_changes' or 'reindex' which might have related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or comparison to sibling tools like 'reindex' or 'get_co_changes', leaving the agent with minimal context for appropriate selection.

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