track_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a stateful linkage ('establish its current value as the baseline') but says nothing about side effects, whether monitoring/polling occurs, permissions required, or what happens on re-tracking an already-tracked memory. The 'baseline' phrase is the only real behavioral signal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is efficient but terse to the point of under-specification for a 7-parameter 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. An agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently relative to its source-tracking siblings.

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 only 29% (selector and statement_template documented, the rest bare). The description gestures at 'JSON or text file' (mapping to the kind enum) but does not explain mode, interval_seconds, or the interaction between kind and path. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Link an active memory to a local JSON or text file' with the added scope of establishing a baseline. An agent can grasp what the tool does, but the description never distinguishes it from closely related siblings like sync_sources, watch_status, or resolve_source_change.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions beyond the vague phrase 'an active memory', and no routing to alternatives. Given a sibling family that includes sync_sources, watch_status, and resolve_source_change, this omission leaves the agent to guess which source-tracking tool to pick.

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