For a long time I thought the trace for matrices were just an elementary function with nice properties. But it is much more than that and really should be think of as a geometrical object (see Geometric interpretation of trace). For example considering the trace of a square matrix $M$ associated to a application $\phi_M \colon E\rightarrow F$ with $\dim E= \dim F = n$ doesn't make sense if $E\neq F$ and one should use the Trace only for endomorphism.
Now we consider tensors on a Riemannian manifold. There is the notion of "partial trace" : for a tensor $ T^{j_1\cdots j_n}_{k_1,\cdots k_m}$ we write
$$"\text{Trace}(T)"=T^{j_1\cdots j_{n-1}}_{k_1,k_{m-1}} :=\sum_i T^{j_1\cdots j_{n-1},i}_{k_1,k_{m-1},i}$$ when the trace has been made on the $n$ and $m$ coordinates. But now, as before, I understand the definition and I can use it to do computations but I just have no insight why this is a interesting object and what is the geometry behind it. How do I know I am not writting something that just doesn't make sense ?
An example of particular interest (and also fundamental in physics for general relativity) is the Riemann curvature tensor / Ricci tensor / scalar curvature.
$$ R^i_{jkl}\rightarrow R_{jl}\rightarrow R$$
My geometric intepretation of the Rieman curvature tensor is with parallele transport on small loops. I also know about the scalar curvature and the volume of the sphere. But I really can't see why one should be the trace of the other or in physics why the massive particles (which have no idea about tensors) should use the trace for the law of gravitation...