Track code entropy across mainline git history by scoring trajectory into a trend report, caching points for fast rebuilds.
Score trajectory over mainline git history (ce.trend-report schema; points cache in the index, rebuildable from history).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | subpath (default: project root) | |
| batch | No | max uncached commits measured per call | |
| commits | No | mainline window size (default 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose caching behavior ('points cache in the index, rebuildable from history'), which tells the agent a write side effect exists but is recoverable. It omits permissions, cost/rate concerns, and what the scoring actually measures.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with an efficient parenthetical. No redundant filler, though the parenthetical packs two distinct ideas (output schema reference and cache behavior) which slightly compresses readability.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description references an external 'ce.trend-report schema' but never explains the return shape. It is minimally sufficient for an all-optional 3-param tool, but leaves output interpretation and usage context to the agent.
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 path, batch, and commits. The description adds no syntax, format, or intent detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Score trajectory over mainline git history'), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings like churn or scan. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling (churn), leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the term 'trajectory' alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description never mentions churn or any other sibling, so the agent has no routing signal despite 'trajectory' being ambiguous next to 'churn'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.