tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or output format, only naming a few operations. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely modifies project state.

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 short but poorly structured: it ends with an unhelpful meta-truncation '[25 actions]' and lacks a clear front-loaded statement of the tool's overall function. The fragment does not earn its place as a useful definition.

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?

For a dispatcher with 25 actions, a nested 'args' object, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It provides no action enumeration, invocation guidance, or behavioral context, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description only names a handful of possible actions without explaining the required 'action' string or the nested 'args' object structure. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema and does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 lists several tracking-related operations (point/planar/mesh/feature tracking, stabilize, camera solve, lens undistort, track validation), which conveys the domain and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like audio or color_grade. However, it never states what the tool does as a whole (e.g., 'perform tracking operations') and the truncated '[25 actions]' leaves the scope unclear.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as vfx3d or effects, nor any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The description is purely a capability list with zero routing guidance.

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