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 describes the tool's actions (re-scanning, re-discovering, etc.), which implies it's a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, how long it takes, what permissions are required, or what happens to existing data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Re-scan all subprojects') and elaborates with specific sub-actions. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity implied by 're-scan all subprojects' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error details, or a summary of changes), nor does it cover prerequisites, side effects, or performance considerations. For a tool that likely performs significant data processing, this is inadequate.

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 already fully documents the input (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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 ('re-scan', 're-discover', 're-parse', 're-scan', 're-link') and resource ('all subprojects'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subproject_graph' or 'subproject_add_repo', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to subprojects (e.g., 'get_subproject_clients', 'get_subproject_graph', 'subproject_add_repo'), there's no indication of when this comprehensive re-scan is appropriate versus more targeted operations.

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