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: it uses pattern matching, skips test files, and lists specific vulnerability types detected. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., scan time, resource usage), output format, error handling, or whether it modifies files (though 'scan' implies read-only). For a security scanning tool with no annotations, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with specific details, and the second lists detected vulnerabilities and a behavioral note. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 provides a clear purpose and some behavioral context but lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance. For a security scanning tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but could benefit from more context on what the scan returns or how results are presented.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'OWASP Top-10' and lists vulnerability types, which aligns with the 'rules' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('scan') and resource ('project files') with specific purpose ('for OWASP Top-10 security vulnerabilities using pattern matching'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security scanning rather than code quality, architecture, or other analysis types, and explicitly lists 8 specific vulnerability types it detects.

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 some implied usage context by stating it 'skips test files,' which suggests when it might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_code_smells' or 'detect_antipatterns' from the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond test files.

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