tracker_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are 'grouped by status' and each response includes a 'system_instruction' for presenting results. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, disclosing output structure and client-specific presentation 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an Input section, and an Output section. Every line serves a purpose, and it avoids unnecessary fluff. The format is easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 that the tool is a read-only list operation, has a detailed schema (100% param coverage), an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, input parameters, and output format, including the notable system_instruction. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Input section simply duplicates the parameter descriptions already present in the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Lists the user's tracked jobs'. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'tracked jobs' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tracker_add, tracker_remove, and jobs_search by focusing solely on listing tracked jobs with optional filtering/pagination.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to view a user's tracked jobs) and mentions its optional filtering/pagination, providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 but has clear context.

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