track_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('Start tracking'), which implies a state change (creation), but does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important gaps for an AI agent.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, then adds parameter details. Every sentence is necessary and there is no fluff. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers parameters and basic action. However, given the lack of annotations, some behavioral context (e.g., that this is a write/creation operation, potential idempotency) is missing. Still, for a simple tool with few parameters, it is reasonably 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 schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates fully by explaining slug with examples, component_id as tracking a single component (with reference to list_service_components), and alert_sensitivity with each enum value and default explained. This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 states the action ('Start tracking') and the resource ('service dependency by its slug'), with specific examples ('github', 'aws'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_dependency' (retrieve) and 'update_dependency_alert_sensitivity' (modify), making 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 with slug examples, optional parameters, and enum values for alert_sensitivity. It implies creation by saying 'Start tracking', but does not explicitly contrast with updating or deleting dependencies. The guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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