wick_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states what the tool does and its downstream effect (computing burn rate, session cost, estimated messages remaining), which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a tool that likely records data.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, when to call, and why it matters. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tracking tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, when, and why effectively. It explains the tool's role in the broader lifecycle (after every response) and the metrics it powers, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor omissions like error handling or exact return values are not critical here.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond linking the parameters to 'this response', which is implicit. Baseline 3 is correct since the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Track token usage for this response' with a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly scopes the action to the current response. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like wick_status and wick_reset by focusing on per-response token tracking.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this after EVERY Claude response automatically.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the mandatory nature of the call is unambiguous, so a 4 is appropriate.

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