quest_tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the caveat 'if exposed' about guardian boundary state, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, possible errors, or the output format. For a status check, this is minimal transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the checked components efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no redundancy or filler.

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 is adequate for a simple status check but leaves gaps: it does not explain the device_id parameter, clarify the expected output structure, or provide any error/edge-case context. With no annotations or output schema, the description is only partially complete.

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 only parameter, device_id, is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or effect. The agent receives no guidance for this optional 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 specifies a clear action ('Check tracking subsystem status') and explicitly lists the components (head/hand/eye/body/controller) plus guardian boundary state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_info and quest_devices, which cover different aspects.

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 implies usage when tracking status is needed, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Given the large set of sibling tools, explicit guidance would be more helpful, but the purpose is clear enough to infer correct usage.

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