track_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by explaining how to read the output (per-iteration measured offset and applied step, plus a `move_failures` field for unconfirmed moves), but it never says the call is non-mutating, what happens if no follow loop is running, or what the failure/empty response looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the diagnostic detail, and no filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted ("one whose moves the picture never confirms"), but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information and it does document the per-iteration structure and the `move_failures` signal. Complexity is low (no params, no nested objects), so this is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is the absence of preconditions and safety framing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-parameter burden is nil and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with or needs to compensate for the empty arguments object.

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 states a specific verb ("Report") and resource (the state of the follow loop), plus what the payload contains per iteration. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts itself with the adjacent lifecycle tools (track_start, track_stop, camera_status), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the emphasis on diagnosing a misbehaving loop suggests it is called while/after tracking runs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions (e.g. whether a loop must be active), and no alternatives such as camera_status are mentioned.

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