tracking-report

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

With no annotations available, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Report MovieClip and tracking state' without details about read-only behavior, output format, or scope. While report implies a read operation, the description does not mention return structure, possible side effects, or prerequisites, so transparency is limited.

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, short sentence with no redundant elements. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core function, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and appears simple, the description does not explain what the report contains, what 'MovieClip' or 'tracking state' include, or how this report differs from the many related tracking report tools. Without an output schema, the description also leaves the return value unspecified, making its present information incomplete for confident invocation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed because the tool takes no arguments.

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 'Report MovieClip and tracking state' uses the specific verb 'Report' along with a resource ('MovieClip and tracking state'), clearly indicating the tool's intent. It is distinguishable from similar siblings like tracking-marker_report and tracking-track_report by mentioning 'MovieClip,' though it doesn't explicitly spell out how it differs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tracking-track_report, tracking-marker_report, or tracking-clip_load. There are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and sibling context.

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