get_trackers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' operation is consistent. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: naming varies by workspace, admins configure these, and it includes which side is tracked. This helps the agent understand potential variability in the data without contradicting the annotations.

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, dense sentence followed by a short 'Also useful' clause. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the additional guidance relevant. Slightly verbose due to the example of naming variations, but earns its place by clarifying a real-world ambiguity.

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 simple tool (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (every tracked phrase and side tracked), when to call it (before search_calls with trackers filter), and why it's useful (explaining tracker hits). No critical context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already covers workspaceId with a description ('Filter trackers by workspace ID') and pattern, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context that trackers are 'configured in a workspace' but does not clarify behavior when workspaceId is omitted beyond the schema's optional status. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'List keyword tracker definitions configured in a workspace, including every tracked phrase and which side is tracked (company/customer).' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('keyword tracker definitions'), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_calls or get_call.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this before using the trackers filter on search_calls so you know what names exist' and 'Also useful to explain tracker hits that appear in call summaries.' This clarifies when to use it and its relationship to search_calls, giving the agent concrete context for tool selection.

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