keyso_get_ai_tracker_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a GET request, implying read-only, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the response structure. The description is confined to request details and adds little behavioral context beyond the method.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the method, path, and an example in just three lines. There is no redundant text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple GET endpoint.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., progress percentage, status) and when to use this endpoint relative to others. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to infer the response format and the tool's role in the AI tracker workflow.

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% as each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by showing an example request with the array syntax for ids[] (ids[]=123&ids[]=456), clarifying how to pass multiple IDs. The token and base_url parameters are standard and adequately described in the schema, so the example fills a practical gap.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Трекер ИИ - прогресс обновления проектов' (AI tracker - progress of project updates) and provides the HTTP method and path. This is a clear verb-resource pairing, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_entity or keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_report, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only shows an example request and does not mention conditions like 'after starting an update' or which other endpoints to consider for different data. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding between many AI tracker endpoints.

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