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 the tool's actions ('Discovers services, parses API contracts, scans for HTTP client calls, and links them to known endpoints'), which adds useful context beyond basic addition. However, it does not cover critical behavioral aspects like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., indexing or data changes), error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by elaboration on subproject scope and actions. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the action details into the initial statement.

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 (e.g., discovery and parsing actions), but it lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or integration with the broader system. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, this is adequate but has notable gaps in 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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'repository/service' but doesn't clarify 'repo_path' semantics further). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Add a repository as a subproject') and resource ('current project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'subproject_sync' or 'get_subproject_graph' by focusing on initial addition rather than synchronization or querying. It elaborates on what constitutes a subproject ('microservices, frontends, backends, shared libraries, CLI tools'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage for adding repositories as subprojects in a project ecosystem, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'subproject_sync' for updates or 'get_subproject_graph' for viewing). It provides context about what a subproject is, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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