Describe the tracker

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the server writes config on first start and `config_generated` reports where it is and what to check.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and packs useful details into two sentences. It is dense but not wasteful, though the parenthetical and list make it slightly harder to scan.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return values in full. It still explains the key returned concepts and the first-start config behavior, making it complete enough for a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the schema has full coverage. No additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 that this tool reports the tracker's layout: field-to-column mapping, custom fields, headers, statuses, closed statuses, follow-up rule, and unsupported tools. It is specific about the returned information, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_tracker or fix_tracker.

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 implied by references to add_application's `extra` and funnel's `by`, suggesting the tool helps callers learn exact header text before using those tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison with check_tracker or fix_tracker.

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