list_tracked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a safe read-only operation, nor anything about side effects, permissions, or pagination. It only asserts what information is present, not how the tool behaves when called.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned content. It is efficient, though the sentence is grammatically a fragment and slightly cryptic in its shorthand.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe the return shape, and it does name two returned elements (the tracked sources and the last sweep time). However, terms like 'weekly sweep' and 'sources' are never defined, so it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at specifics.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema needs additional elaboration from the description.

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 reads as a noun phrase ('The sources in the weekly sweep...') rather than a clear verb+resource statement, though it does convey the domain concept of listing tracked sources. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like track/untrack or clarify that it is the read-side counterpart. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the obvious siblings such as track, untrack, or refresh. An agent must infer from the name alone that this lists currently tracked sources, with no guidance on prerequisites or when an alternative is preferable.

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