threadmap_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions building the drift map, it does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether messages are appended, overwritten, or require an active session). The description is too thin to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences with the action front-loaded and no superfluous detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to invoke it correctly: it states when to call and what it does. However, given the absence of annotations, it could have briefly mentioned that this is a write operation that records messages, but the current level is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (role, content, sessionId). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—mainly reinforcing that role and content correspond to the immediate user/assistant message. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not substantially enrich parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Track a message in the conversation timeline') and the resource it acts on. It distinguishes itself from siblings like threadmap_timeline (which likely displays the timeline) by positioning itself as the recording step, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after each user or assistant message.' This clearly indicates the appropriate trigger and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction is specific enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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