untrack_chunk

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether removing tracking frees resources), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. The agent has no insight into the tool's impact.

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 extremely short (one sentence in Chinese), but this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. It fails to provide any useful information beyond what the name already conveys.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description should at least explain the return value or behavior. It does not, leaving the tool's functionality largely opaque.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the single required parameter 'addr' is left unexplained. The agent cannot infer what kind of address (memory address, identifier, etc.) is expected.

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 '停止追踪 chunk' essentially restates the tool name ('untrack chunk') in Chinese, adding no new information about what a 'chunk' is in this context. It is a tautology, as it only repeats the action implied by the name without clarifying the resource or scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_chunk' or 'tracked_chunks_status'. The description fails to specify prerequisites or conditions for stopping tracking.

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