track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/complexity profile is covered. The description adds the set of tracked lifecycle events, which is real behavioral context. It omits whether the call is a point-in-time snapshot or a long-running observation, and whether a message that was never delivered yields an error or an empty trace.

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?

One compact sentence followed by a short Args line; nothing is padded and the core meaning arrives first. The Args block restates the single parameter in a formulaic way, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and risk need not be spelled out. What is missing is the operational contract: one-shot vs blocking behavior, and the absence of any routing against the many similarly named siblings. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool named as generically as 'track'.

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%, and the only schema property is a bare string named 'id'. The description compensates by clarifying it is a 'message id', which is genuinely useful given siblings that might take other ids. It does not say where such an id comes from (presumably returned by send) or whether it accepts other id forms.

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?

Names a specific verb (follow/track) and resource (a message), then enumerates the lifecycle stages covered: posted, delivered, wake attempts, read, answered. An agent can tell this is a per-message state tracker. It does not, however, distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as status, progress, or wait_reply, and the parenthetical codenames (Antigravity, Codex) are internal jargon that adds no clarity.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of wait_reply, read, status, or progress — all of which sound adjacent. There is no guidance on whether track is a one-shot snapshot or something that blocks/polls, which is precisely the decision an agent needs to make between this and wait_reply.

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