portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination. For a tool with 21 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose and data format. It is front-loaded with essential information and avoids unnecessary details, though it could potentially benefit from a brief second sentence for usage 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?

Given the high parameter count (21), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks context on behavioral traits, output format, or usage guidelines. For a complex analytics tool, more completeness would be helpful, but the clear purpose and full schema coverage keep it at a baseline level.

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 fully documents all 21 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying time-series filtering via 'over time,' which is already covered by the required time parameters in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 latency analytics as time-series data, showing average, p50, p90, and p99 latency percentiles over time.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('latency analytics'), and data format ('time-series data'), but does not differentiate from sibling analytics tools like 'get_cost_analytics' or 'get_error_analytics' beyond the latency focus.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context for selection among sibling analytics tools, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit direction.

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