track_dependency

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('start tracking') but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, failure conditions, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 sentence of 12 words, directly front-loading the action. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could briefly mention what happens after tracking starts (e.g., state changes), but overall covers the core usage.

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 must add meaning. It explains the 'slug' parameter by giving examples ('github', 'aws'), clarifying its purpose beyond the raw schema. Could be improved by specifying format or constraints.

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 verb 'Start tracking' is specific to initiating a dependency monitoring relationship, and 'service dependency' clearly identifies the resource. The example slugs distinguish it from siblings like get_dependency, list_dependencies, and delete_dependency.

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: to begin tracking a dependency using its slug. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if already tracked), nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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