superpos_list_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states listing tracks and their states, but omits important aspects like whether results are paginated, sorted, or filtered by hive_id (which is an optional parameter). No mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with a clear focus: first sentence defines the tool and resource, second lists possible states. Front-loaded and no filler. However, it could be more informative about the parameter without becoming verbose.

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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not required. However, the description does not integrate the optional hive_id parameter into the context, nor does it help the agent understand scope (e.g., all hives vs specific). It is minimally complete for a simple list operation.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain the 'hive_id' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage undocumented. This forces the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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?

Description clearly states 'List tracks' with a precise definition of tracks as 'first-class containers that group related issues into a body of work (like an epic).' Lists states for further clarity. The verb 'list' and resource 'tracks' are explicit, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_track' by implying a collection return.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like superpos_get_track, superpos_create_track, etc. The description does not specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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