cleanuparr_get_events_by_tracking

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and the input schema. It doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any special behaviors. However, it is consistent with the annotation (no contradiction).

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, clearly-worded sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point and is easy to parse.

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 simple interface (one read-only parameter, output schema provided, readOnlyHint annotation), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and could mention that it returns a list of events for the given tracking GUID.

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 description identifies the tracking_id parameter as a 'tracking GUID', which adds format and semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This helps the agent understand the expected input, though it does not explain how to obtain a tracking GUID.

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 action (Get) and resource (events) with a specific scope (associated with a tracking GUID). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_events (all events) and get_event (likely by event ID).

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event or list_events. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the presence of a tracking GUID parameter, so it remains implied rather than explicit.

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