track_detailRetrieve the complete verbatim track brief for QVAC hackathon tracks to access full documentation and requirements for on-device AI development.
ENTIRE track brief, verbatim full file. Track 1 = ~9k chars transcribed docx.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| which | No | track1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a verbatim full file and gives a size estimate for track 1, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, potential size limits for other tracks, or any error conditions. It is minimal and lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.
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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the core concept, but the second sentence ('Track 1 = ~9k chars transcribed docx.') is a specific detail that may confuse rather than clarify. It is not well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool actually returns in a general sense, what inputs are valid, or what the output format is. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.
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 schema has zero coverage for the 'which' parameter, and the description provides almost no semantic detail. It only mentions 'Track 1' but does not explain valid values, format, or how to request other tracks. The agent cannot infer the correct parameter usage from the description.
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 indicates the tool returns an entire track brief verbatim, but it is vague about what a 'track' is and how the selection works. It mentions Track 1 as an example but does not clearly state the verb+resource pattern (e.g., 'Returns the full brief for a specified track'). It is not a tautology, but it lacks explicit distinction from siblings like track_brief.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_brief or qvac_fetch. The description does not mention exclusions, context, or comparative advantages, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.