list_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It detailes the returned fields and statuses (draft/inProgress/halted/completed), giving useful context on what the tool reveals. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by details and usage guidance. Every clause adds value without redundancy. The structure is highly 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the exact data returned, the statuses, and the recommended usage order. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating the fields.

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 documents parameter package_name with a clear description and a default value. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add param details. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'List all release tracks for an app' with specific details on track types (internal, alpha, beta, production, custom closed) and the release data returned (name, versionCodes, status, userFraction, releaseNotes). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track, which fetches a single track, and promote_release/update_rollout/halt_rollout, which are mutations.

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 final sentence 'Start here to see what is live before using promote_release, update_rollout or halt_rollout' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and names the alternative tools it precedes. This is a clear usage directive, even though it doesn't contrast with get_track explicitly.

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