mcp_engram_quick_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the tool is 'ULTRA LOW FRICTION' and produces a result 'identical in quality' to the full tool, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or other important behavioral traits. The description is promotional rather than informative.

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 two sentences, very concise, and front-loads the key purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 12 parameters (only 2 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a 'trace:* .leg block' is, how to choose among the many optional fields, or what the tool returns. The lack of output schema and behavioral details leaves the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond calling them 'simple natural fields'. The input schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so no extra value is added.

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 this is an 'ULTRA LOW FRICTION version of trace capture for daily TUI use' that produces a structured trace block. It distinguishes itself from a full structured tool and specifies the use case (fast thinking capture during active work).

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for 'fast thinking capture during active work' and 'strongly preferred for real-time TUI sessions'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for full structured capture.

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