Track Run

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it writes to a file and returns a delta, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites or appends, nor does it mention prerequisites like the file's existence. Given annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds context without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what it writes, what it returns). Minor gaps such as handling of missing history file or error cases are not addressed, but these are not critical for a simple tool. The description is largely complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, offering no additional meaning or usage detail.

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 the verb ('Record') and resource ('.argus/history.json'), and explains the output (delta versus previous run). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the trend-line aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative to differentiate from.

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 implies usage context ('Turns ARGUS from a snapshot into a trend line') which signals when it's appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternative choices.

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