trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions support for regex, glob patterns, and language filters, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output format (e.g., pagination, match structure), leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides clear usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs, error handling, or output structure, which are crucial for effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps, but more context is needed for full completeness.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters (e.g., query, is_regex, file_pattern). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by listing supported features (regex, glob, language filter) without explaining parameter interactions or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('full-text search') and resources ('across all indexed files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search' (likely more general) and 'search_sessions' (session-specific). It explicitly mentions what it searches for (strings, comments, TODOs, etc.), making its scope distinct.

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: 'Use for finding strings, comments, TODOs, config values, error messages — anything not captured as a symbol.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for non-symbol text searches) versus alternatives like 'find_usages' or 'get_symbol' (which likely handle symbol-based searches), offering strong contextual differentiation.

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