trace_correlation_check

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

The description discloses key behaviors: reading MCP network logs, optionally reading backend logs or using SSH, and outputting scores. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., SSH network activity), required permissions (e.g., file access, SSH credentials), or performance implications. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, which it partially meets.

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 concise, with one sentence for purpose and behavior. However, the second sentence ('先做进现有 MCP，后续再剥离') is a meta comment that does not aid tool usage and could be removed. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and 4 optional parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what parameters are available. It mentions the output (trace coverage and correlation score) but lacks details on format or interpretation. No required parameters or enums reduce the need for extensive documentation, so it is largely complete.

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 restates the backend parameter options (file vs SSH) but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Parameters like 'since' and 'urlContains' are not elaborated. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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: verifying whether browser requests and backend logs share the same traceId/runId. It specifies the action (verify), resource (trace correlation), and output (trace coverage and correlation score). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace_correlate', though the name and context imply specialization.

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 like 'trace_correlate' or 'trace_chain'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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