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 mentions the audit scope but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally: does it return a report, modify code, require specific permissions, have side effects, or produce structured output? The phrase 'audit' suggests read-only analysis, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 extremely concise with two short sentences that pack meaningful information: the first defines the audit scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 has no parameters (simple input) and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose and usage context. However, for a code analysis tool among 100+ siblings, it should more clearly differentiate its specific role and explain what kind of output to expect. The absence of annotations means the description should do more heavy lifting about behavioral characteristics.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. It could potentially note that no configuration is needed, but this is a minor omission given the complete schema coverage.

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: 'Dead code & coverage audit' with specific targets (dead exports, untested public symbols, heritage debt). It uses specific verbs like 'audit' and identifies the resource domain (codebase analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dead_code' or 'get_untested_exports', which appear to provide similar functionality.

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 usage context with 'Use for cleanup and coverage tasks', which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_dead_code', 'get_untested_exports', 'check_quality_gates'). The guidance is present but incomplete for a server with 100+ tools.

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