tgtrack_yandex_web_create_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any authentication or rate limiting requirements. The description only states what it does, not its behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could benefit from a slightly more detailed structure, such as mentioning the response type, for higher scores.

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, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is too brief. It does not explain the possible status values, error scenarios, or the relationship with create_integration beyond the parameter link. A complete description would list example statuses and provide usage context.

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 50% (chatID has no description). The description adds meaning to webCreationCode by stating it comes from create_integration, but chatID remains unexplained. The description partly compensates for the missing schema 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the auto-creation status of Yandex goals using a webCreationCode from create_integration. It uses a specific verb (status) and resource (auto-creation goals), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tgtrack_create_integration and tgtrack_update_goal.

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 implies this tool should be used after tgtrack_create_integration to check progress, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks formal guidance.

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