track_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'track active files' and 'persist file context' but does not explain whether tracking is additive or replaces previous state, any permissions needed, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and purpose, then provides a use case. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more behavioral details. It captures the core purpose and use case, but lacks information on return value, idempotency, or error states. It is minimally complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 input schema covers both parameters (cwd and files) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds a usage context but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Track active files in local portal project state' and adds context about persisting file across pipeline steps. It distinguishes from siblings like 'untrack_files' and 'get_tracked_files' through the action verb and purpose, though 'track' could be more specific (e.g., add or set).

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 it is 'useful to persist file context between pipeline steps,' which implies when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or mention alternatives like 'untrack_files.' This is a minimal guidance.

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