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 what the tool returns ('symbol definitions from dependency bundles') and mentions the prerequisite installation step, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves 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 perfectly concise and well-structured with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second explains the return value and primary use case, and the third provides essential prerequisite information. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose, use case, and prerequisites well, but doesn't describe the return format (crucial since there's no output schema) or important behavioral aspects. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level but lacks details needed for reliable invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (query, kind, limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions searching for 'symbols' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for any parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('search pre-indexed bundles for symbols') and resources ('symbols from popular libraries like React, Express'), and distinguishes it from generic search tools by specifying it's for go-to-definition into node_modules/vendor. It provides clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_text' by focusing on symbol definitions from dependency bundles.

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 context for when to use this tool ('useful for go-to-definition into node_modules/vendor') and mentions prerequisite setup ('Install bundles via CLI: `trace-mcp bundles export`'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different search scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.

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