tracked_chunks_status

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

The description discloses that the tool outputs header, bin membership, and diff, implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state lack of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description carries the full burden but does not fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the output.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it omits necessary context about the parameter and usage, making it slightly under-specified. Front-loading is adequate, but could be improved without becoming verbose.

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?

The description contains essential information (outputs status of tracked chunks) but assumes domain knowledge about header, bin membership, and diff. It does not mention that tracking must be set up first. An output schema exists, which may compensate for return value details, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 input schema has one parameter 'include_raw' with no description. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but fails to do so. The parameter name provides some hint, but semantic meaning is missing.

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?

Description clearly states the tool outputs current header, bin membership, and recent diff of tracked chunks. It is a specific verb+resource (output status of tracked chunks) and differentiates from siblings like track_chunk (which adds tracking) and heap_bins_json (which shows all bins).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it should be used after tracking chunks, but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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