get_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (name, versionCodes, status, userFraction, releaseNotes) and implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires permissions, or handles errors. For a simple get operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and the prerequisite step. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 simple retrieval tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The field list compensates for the missing output schema, and the sibling context shows this is a distinct read operation.

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 100%, so the description need not elaborate on parameters. It does not add information beyond the schema; the track and package_name parameters are fully documented in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Get a single release track with its releases' and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_tracks by specifying it's for a single track and explicitly mentioning list_tracks as a prerequisite.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use list_tracks first if you do not know the track name.' This indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative list_tracks, clarifying the appropriate workflow.

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