bi_get_alert_tracks

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool is known broken on a specific version, that both read and admin paths return 'Access denied', that the gating mechanism is undocumented, and that it falls back between clients accordingly.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the warnings are relevant, but the explanation is somewhat lengthy due to repeated broken-state warnings and speculative admin-client reasoning. Still, most sentences add necessary context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, current known-broken behavior, authentication path behavior, and the practical instruction not to depend on it. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance for the required 'path' parameter by pointing to bi_list_alerts as the source, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 states precisely what the tool does: returns AI object tracks (per-frame bounding boxes) inside one alert. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bi_get_alert_image or bi_list_alerts by naming the resource and scope.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite: pass the alert's 'path' from bi_list_alerts. It also warns not to rely on the tool until gating is characterized, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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