ftrack_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states 'Execute a query' and provides an example, without revealing whether it is read-only, what it returns, potential side effects, permissions needed, or result limits. It adds little beyond the basic function.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks information about the return format, whether queries are read-only, and how this tool relates to other query/search tools. Since there is no output schema, more context would help the agent set expectations.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'expression' parameter with an example. The description adds a slightly richer example with a WHERE clause, but this is marginal. It meets the baseline 3 but does not substantially enhance understanding.

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 tool executes a query using ftrack query language, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like ftrack_parse_query (which likely parses queries) and ftrack_search (which may be a friendlier search), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example implies usage, but there is no mention of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to related tools like ftrack_search or ftrack_parse_query.

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