tracking_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some behavior (template-specific extra fields, pid consumed by tracking_stop/tracking_kill), but says nothing about what creation returns, whether failures occur on duplicate names, or permission/auth requirements for a mutation-style tool.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a structured Args block where each line earns its place by documenting a parameter the schema leaves bare. Slightly verbose formatting for what is essentially param documentation, but no wasted content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are well covered. What is missing for a 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations is usage context and creation-side behavior (idempotency, error cases), leaving the definition merely adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description nearly compensates fully: it explains all seven parameters with concrete examples (total=15300 MB, unit, items as a nested step list with its own fields, extra as template-specific keys). It falls short of 5 only because 'extra' is described vaguely ('champs specifiques au template') rather than mapping keys to specific templates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cree une nouvelle session de tracking' (creates a new tracking session), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g., tracking_update vs create), so the agent must infer the create/update boundary from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied (create a session when starting tracked work). It cross-references siblings tracking_templates() for valid template values and tracking_stop/tracking_kill for the pid, which is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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