openpanel_track_screen_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as tracking/recording data but fails to mention idempotency, rate limits, side effects, or whether this creates new profiles automatically.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the essential action and target. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't contribute to agent understanding.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter relationships, required values, or the OpenPanel-specific context (e.g., what 'site' refers to in this system).

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'screen view' loosely maps to 'screen_name' and 'screen_class', the description provides no guidance for the 5 other parameters (site, profile_id, properties, client_ip, user_agent), including the required 'site' parameter.

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 (Track), resource (screen view event), and scope (mobile applications). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'openpanel_track_page_view' and 'openpanel_track_event' by specifying the mobile context and screen-specific tracking, though it could explicitly contrast with web page views.

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?

Provides implied usage context by specifying 'for mobile applications,' which hints this is for native mobile apps rather than web. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like 'openpanel_track_page_view' or 'openpanel_track_event'.

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