track_object_creation

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that it records a baseline count and that subsequent polling is needed, but doesn't specify side effects (e.g., state changes, resource usage) or permissions required. Moderate transparency with some behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second gives actionable follow-up. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema exists; description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, tracking ID). It says 'Records a baseline count' but doesn't specify response format. For a tool without output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it only hints at the role of both parameters (class and duration) but provides no new constraints or clarifications.

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 states clear verb ('Track') and resource ('object creation'), and specifies 'for a specific class over a duration', making the scope unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_object_count by framing itself as a setup action.

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?

Description implies usage: call this first, then poll get_object_count. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., direct get_object_count call) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named beyond the suggested follow-up.

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