list_entity_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by disclosing that returned tracks can include both manually and auto-applied ones, and explains board automation behavior that may affect results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 coherent paragraph that provides necessary context without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose.

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 effectively explains what is returned (track instances), the two sources (manual and auto-applied), and how to distinguish them. It covers the key contextual information an agent needs.

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 parameter has description and enum; entityId has constraints but no description). The description does not add explicit details about the parameters, though the purpose of entityId is implied by 'on a specific record'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers one parameter well and the other is implicit.

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 lists track instances on a specific record, distinguishing it from list_track_definitions which lists templates. It specifies the record types (opportunity/project/party) and uses specific verbs ('List track INSTANCES').

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 explicitly contrasts with list_track_definitions, indicating when to use this tool vs that sibling. It also explains that tracks may be auto-applied by board automation and provides guidance on how to distinguish manually vs auto-applied tracks by comparing trackDefinition.id with apply_track history.

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