track_ugc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. It only says 'track' performance, implying a read operation but without explicit confirmation.

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 that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the metrics. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easily scannable, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the expected response format, how to obtain a repost_id, or valid platform values. An agent would need additional context to call it correctly, especially given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It does not explain what repost_id refers to (e.g., a specific ID from another tool) or what values platform accepts (e.g., Instagram, TikTok). The phrase 'across platforms' hints but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints.

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 'Track UGC repost performance' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete metrics (reach, likes, comments, saves, shares). It is distinct from siblings like curate_ugc and request_ugc_permission, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a repost_id), exclusions, or context like 'use this after a repost is live'. The description merely states the function without usage conditions.

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