tracks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds context about inclusive track types (default and custom), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. It provides useful but incomplete behavioral information.

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, concise sentence of 14 words that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or 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 absence of an output schema, the description clarifies what tracks are listed but does not mention response structure, pagination limits, or any constraints. It is adequate for a simple list operation but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not mention the parameters or their expected values, leaving the schema to fully define them.

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 lists every track visible in an edit, specifying the resource (tracks) and action (list). It explicitly mentions the types of tracks included (default internal/alpha/beta/production + custom closed-testing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracks_get or tracks_create.

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 in the context of an edit ('in this edit') and indicates it is for listing all tracks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tracks_get for a single track. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives.

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