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 behaviors: it triggers reindexing of a single file, invalidates search caches, and warns about duplicate symbols through response inspection. It doesn't mention error handling, performance impact, or authentication needs, but covers essential operational behavior.

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 structured with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second provides usage timing, third explains response handling. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when to call it, what it does, and how to interpret responses. It could benefit from mentioning error conditions or what happens with invalid file paths, but covers the essential operational context well.

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% with the single parameter 'file_path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('notify', 'reindexes', 'invalidates') and resource ('trace-mcp', 'file', 'search caches'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reindex' by focusing on single-file notification after edits rather than broader reindexing operations.

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: 'Call after Edit/Write to keep index fresh' specifies when to use it, and the mention of duplicate symbol warnings indicates when to review before continuing. It implicitly distinguishes from batch or full reindex operations by focusing on single-file updates.

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