pmg_tracker_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the operation is read-only ('read'), describes the API endpoint, parameter mappings for start/end, filters, and the limit range (0-100000, default 2000). It does not mention error handling or result ordering, but provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses multiple short sentences to convey key information. The inclusion of the API path detail is useful but slightly verbose. Overall, it balances completeness and brevity well.

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 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most aspects: purpose, config, API path, main parameter mappings, and limits. However, it misses parameter descriptions for node and proximo_target, and does not mention pagination or result sorting. The existence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 only 10% (one parameter described in schema). The description compensates by explaining usage for 6 of 10 parameters: start, end, from_, target, ndr, greylist, limit. It provides mapping for start/end to Unix epoch and states limit default. However, it omits explanations for node, xfilter, and proximo_target.

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 'List mail tracking entries (read)', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the required configuration. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool pmg_tracker_detail, which likely provides detailed view of a single entry.

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 mentions the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config and the API path, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pmg_tracker_detail. There is no explicit context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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