trackman

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns by stating 'reads' and 'Raw only.' It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: per-action `take` defaults, `completed=None` returns all rounds regardless of completion state, and session returns different payloads for RANGE_PRACTICE vs COURSE_PLAY. This contextual information is valuable for invoking the tool correctly.

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 long but well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose and a bulleted list of actions. Every sentence conveys either an action's purpose, its parameters, or behavioral nuances, so nothing feels redundant. Given the tool's complexity (7 sub-actions, 11 params), the length is appropriate.

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?

The description covers all 7 actions, all relevant parameters, default pagination behavior, and the distinction between activity types. It even notes the shape of responses (totalCount + page of summaries for sessions, scorecards for rounds). Since an output schema exists, detailed return-theme documentation is unnecessary, making the description complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description bears the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains each action's relevant parameters, e.g., `handicap` takes `skip`/`take` default 20 and `only_in_avg`; `sessions` takes `kinds`, `time_from`/`time_to`, `include_hidden`; `rounds` takes `completed`; and `clubs` takes `include_retired`. It also clarifies the default `take` values per action, which are not obvious from the schema.

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 defines the tool as 'Trackman data reads' and lists seven specific actions (profile, handicap, sessions, session, rounds, clubs, summary), each with a resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself with 'Raw only,' making clear it provides unprocessed launch-monitor data. Although it doesn't reference sibling tools explicitly, the specificity of actions and raw-only scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for each sub-action, e.g., 'Use session with an item's id for full detail' and explains when to use sessions vs session vs rounds. However, it never explicitly contrasts the tool with sibling tools or says when not to use it. The 'Raw only' phrase is a subtle exclusion but no named alternatives are given.

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