Metis — Remove Tracked File

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the file on disk is never touched, only the tracking record is deleted. It also explains what the tracking record is for and what the return value will be, leaving no ambiguity.

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 concise at ~150 words, well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a paragraph on usage, and a bulleted Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, referenced output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and return value. No gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds key semantics for the 'path' parameter: it must be an absolute path exactly as registered. This is essential information. Could also mention that it's the only parameter, but schema already indicates one required param.

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 verb 'remove' (or 'stop tracking') and the resource 'tracked file', and distinguishes it from sibling 'add_tracked_file' by labeling it as the inverse. It also specifies the context of the tracked-files list in the Planning tab.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('file no longer relevant or added by mistake'), and implies when not to use (do not want to delete the file on disk). It also references the sibling 'add_tracked_file' as the opposite operation. Could mention 'scan_tracked_files' to find paths, but it's not essential.

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