Track Tool Usage

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool builds usage analytics and is typically invoked automatically, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail potential side effects like persistence or response behavior.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes either the tool's function or its typical usage pattern, with no redundant information.

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 low-complexity tracking tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description sufficiently covers purpose and invocation context. It could mention whether manual use has any caveats, but it is otherwise complete for its simplicity.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description's 'specific scenario' loosely aligns with input_pattern but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool records tool usage for a specific scenario and builds usage analytics. The verb 'Record' and resource 'tool usage' are specific, and the tool's meta purpose distinguishes it from all domain-specific siblings.

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: it is typically called automatically but can be used manually. This gives the agent guidance on when it might be invoked, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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