tracking.report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Report', which implies read-only but lacks details on what data is returned, format, or side effects. A mutation tool would need more, but even for a report, the behavior is opaque.

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, making it concise. It front-loads the key verb and subject. However, for a tool with no parameters, it could afford a little more detail without losing 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source. It identifies the domain and subject but lacks specifics about what 'report' outputs (e.g., list of clips, state flags). It is minimally complete for a simple report.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. However, the description adds only high-level context ('MovieClip and tracking state') without detailing what the report contains. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the schema's implicit emptiness.

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 states a verb ('Report') and a resource ('MovieClip and tracking state'), which is clear but does not distinguish from sibling tools like tracking.marker_report or tracking.track_report. The purpose is understood but ambiguous in scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tracking report tools, the agent needs explicit context to choose correctly.

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