get_vitals_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that averages and threshold flags are returned, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail.

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 very concise, with only four sentences including parameter docs. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides key return information (averages, threshold flags) and mentions version code breakdown. However, it does not detail the output structure or how to interpret flags. Overall, it is fairly complete for a summary tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for package_name and explains the default and maximum for days, adding significant value beyond the schema definition.

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 it gets combined Android Vitals (crash and ANR rates per version code), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_anr_rate and get_crash_rate that focus on individual metrics.

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 implies when to use this tool (for combined vitals) and provides threshold values, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_anr_rate or get_crash_rate for separate metrics.

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