pmg_tracker_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states READ-ONLY and config requirement, but lacks disclosure on rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or response structure beyond mentioning 'list of dicts'.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, config, result format, and sibling link. Front-loaded with READ-ONLY flag.

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 10 optional parameters and output schema, the description covers core purpose, config requirement, and connection to detail tool. Could mention that results are limited or that output is a list, but output schema handles return structure. Slightly lacking on failure scenarios.

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 parameters are well-described in schema. The description adds only the default limit value. No additional parameter context beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'list mail tracking entries' and marks it as READ-ONLY. It distinguishes from sibling pmg_tracker_detail by directing users to it for full delivery trace.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use pmg_tracker_detail instead for full trace of a single message ID. However, it could be clearer about when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need details for a specific message). Still, the guidance is effective.

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