get_track

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true), the description adds context that the API does NOT include a trackDefinition link, entity reference, or completion field. This discloses important behavioral traits that affect how agents interpret the response.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields, third explains exclusions and alternatives. No wasted words, highly front-loaded.

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 the simple 1-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return projection, exclusions, and cross-references to relevant siblings. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 schema has a single 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description reinforces that the tool fetches 'by id', but does not detail format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The clarity is adequate, hence 4.

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 it fetches a single track by ID and lists the exact fields returned (id, description, trackDateOn, direction, tasks). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_entity_tracks by noting what is not included.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use alternative tools: 'to find the entity a track is applied to, use list_entity_tracks; to check completion, the track-tasks' own statuses are the proxy.' This directly helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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