List trackers

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It contributes the useful disclosure that access tokens are masked, which is important security context not present in the schema or 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the token-masking note is a single additional clause. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, annotation-rich list operation, the description covers what is returned (linked trackers and settings), the provider scope, and a key security behavior. It does not enumerate exact response fields, but that level of detail is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The sole parameter profile_id is well-named and has default/min/max in the schema, but the schema has no description for it. The description's 'per-profile settings' hints at profile scoping but does not explicitly state that profile_id filters the listed trackers, so compensation for 0% schema coverage is only partial.

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?

States a specific action — list — plus a specific resource: linked trackers across MAL, AniList, and Kitsu. Scoping to 'linked' and 'per-profile settings' clearly distinguishes it from mutator siblings like link_tracker, unlink_tracker, and set_tracker_settings.

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 makes clear this is the read-only enumeration tool for trackers, with per-profile settings context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the word 'list' make the appropriate context evident.

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