shipping_tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. While the description implies a read operation by showing data, it does not explicitly disclose non-destructive behavior or potential side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It fully explains the output in a front-loaded manner.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (items with quantities and a distinct count). It covers the key behavioral aspects for an experienced user, though a novice might need more context on 'basicShipped' or the '154-item target'. Still, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of 'save_path'. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any context beyond the schema. According to the calibration, high coverage (>80%) gives a baseline of 3, and since the description adds no extra value for parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows shipped items with quantities and a comparison to a perfection target. It uses the verb 'has shipped' which implies a retrieval/display function, and distinguishes the output from sibling tools like 'inventory' or 'perfection' by focusing on shipped items and the specific 154-item target.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inventory' or 'perfection'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from siblings. The context signals list many similar tools but no differentiation is provided.

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