trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'trigger (re)indexing' implies a potentially resource-intensive operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is synchronous or asynchronous, what permissions are required, whether it affects system performance, what happens if indexing fails, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a tool that initiates indexing with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the scope. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 triggers indexing operations with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what indexing entails, what gets indexed, how to verify completion, potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by indexing operations and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context to be complete.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'project or a subdirectory' which aligns with the 'path' parameter's default behavior, but doesn't provide additional context about when to use the 'force' parameter or the implications of reindexing. This 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 action ('trigger (re)indexing') and the target ('project or a subdirectory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_sessions' or 'get_index_health', which appear to be related to indexing operations but serve different purposes.

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. With sibling tools like 'index_sessions' and 'get_index_health' available, there's no indication of when reindexing is appropriate versus checking index health or indexing sessions. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison to related tools.

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