show_tracker

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only action, but the description does not state return format, whether it depends on tick_protocol data, how progress is calculated, or whether any state is changed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentence with no wasted wordsament, and the core operation and scope are front-loaded. For a one-parameter getter, this is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema documents the only parameter, so calling it with a month string is straightforward. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain what 'progress' includes or what the response looks like, leaving ambiguity for an agent selecting and interpreting the result.

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 provides 100% coverage of the only parameter, including the 'YYYY-MM' format requirement. The description adds little beyond 'specific month', but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('tracker progress') with a clear scope ('for a specific month'). It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'show_stats'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'show_stats' or 'tick_protocol'. The description implies it should be used when monthly tracker progress is needed, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools.

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