trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it opens an interactive HTML in a browser, supports specific layouts and coloring strategies, and explains the granularity parameter's effect on node representation. However, it doesn't cover performance limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key features, the second provides crucial usage guidance for the granularity parameter. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about the interactive visualization output and key parameter effects. However, it doesn't explain return values or error conditions, leaving some 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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the 'granularity' parameter's effect ('symbol' shows functions/classes/methods as nodes), but doesn't provide additional context for other parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Open interactive HTML graph in browser') and resource ('showing file/symbol dependencies'), with distinct features like layout options and granularity. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on visualization rather than analysis or data retrieval.

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 visualizing dependencies with interactive features, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dependency_diagram' or 'get_import_graph'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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