pmg_tracker_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and that the id_ parameter is validated (path-segment-safe). However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or detailed return format beyond mentioning 'delivery-hop dicts'. The output schema exists, but the description could add more behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information: read-only nature, action, dependency, and safety validation. It is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and wastes no words.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: read-only behavior, id_ source, and return type. It could be more complete by briefly describing the structure of the delivery-hop dicts, but the output schema likely handles that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that id_ should come from pmg_tracker_list and is validated for safety. This goes beyond the schema. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, so no further addition is needed.

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 explicitly states it gets tracking detail for a specific mail ID, identifies the tool as read-only, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool pmg_tracker_list by instructing to get id_ from that list first. The verb 'get' and resource 'tracking detail for a specific mail ID' are clear and specific.

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 indicates the tool is read-only and that the id_ parameter should be obtained from pmg_tracker_list, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but for a simple retrieval tool this guidance is sufficient.

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