tracker_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and mentions that a summary is returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, return shape, permissions, or whether the summary includes counts versus detailed records.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently covers the core action, filters, and summary return in one pass.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and filters. However, it omits details about the summary contents and filter value semantics that an agent would need to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It names both 'site' and 'status' and explains their filtering roles, but it does not state accepted values, matching behavior, or defaults, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource: list tracked opportunities, with optional site/status filtering and a summary. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like tracker_add and tracker_update by being a read/list operation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List tracked opportunities' and the optional filter fields, but the description does not say when to use this instead of siblings such as find_opportunities or tracker_update. It gives enough context to infer basic use but no explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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