list_entity_tracks

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only. The description adds transparency about the source of tracks (manual vs. auto-applied from board rules) and hints at how to distinguish them. This exceeds annotation disclosure.

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 concise with two sentences and a note, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without superfluous words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains scope, distinguishes from a sibling, and covers behavioral nuance. It lacks detail on the entityId parameter but is otherwise complete.

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% (entity has description, entityId does not). The description mentions entity types but does not explicitly tie to the 'entity' parameter or clarify 'entityId'. It adds marginal value over the schema.

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 lists track instances on a specific record and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_track_definitions', which lists templates. Verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use (when needing track instances on an entity) and distinguishes from list_track_definitions. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear. The note about auto-applied tracks adds useful context.

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