portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves analytics as time-series data but doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the format of the returned data. For a complex analytics tool with 21 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates what the tool does. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.

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 complex analytics tool with 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for an agent to use this tool effectively, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 schema already documents all 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'time-series data' which relates to the time parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage context beyond the schema's ISO8601 format specifications.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve error count analytics as time-series data, showing total error counts over time.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('error count analytics'), and output format ('time-series data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_error_rate_analytics' or 'get_request_analytics'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling analytics tools like 'get_error_rate_analytics' or 'get_request_analytics', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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