tracker_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states that progress is never a ratio and explains why a percentage would misreport regression. It also discloses provenance by saying which database and tree were read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core counts, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a common misinterpretation. No wasted 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 simple status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return content and a key interpretation trap. It could add explicit read-only/ side-effect phrasing, but 'which database and tree were read' strongly implies a non-mutating status read.

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 100%, so the single cwd parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline for high schema 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?

Description states a specific verb 'Counts' and the exact resources counted: status, goal, pending gates, and database/tree provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list and mutation tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use tracker_status versus siblings like feature_list, gate_list, or study_status. The purpose implies an overview/status role, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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