get_incomplete_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not define what 'incomplete' means (failed, interrupted, pending), whether results are paginated, or what state the returned tracks are in. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse given the undefined 'incomplete' concept, but structurally it is clean.

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 tool is simple (one param, no nesting), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least clarify what 'incomplete uploads' signifies and what an agent gets back. It leaves the central concept undefined.

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% and the single station_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'for a station' adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource with a qualifier: tracks whose uploads are incomplete, scoped to a station. This is distinguishable from sibling read tools like search_tracks or get_tracks_by_ids by the filter, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the recovery/orphan-tracking view rather than a general track listing, and there is no guidance on when to prefer it over search_tracks or get_queued_tracks.

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