get_vitals_summary

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

The description discloses returns: averages with threshold flags, and lists the thresholds. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or response structure beyond the brief summary.

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 concise with a front-loaded first sentence summarizing the tool's purpose. The parameter details are structured in a clear list. Could be slightly shorter by omitting the arg format, but overall efficient.

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?

The description explains the main output (averages with threshold flags) and parameters, but with no output schema, it lacks specifics on the exact return format (e.g., JSON fields). It is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds meaningful details: 'days' gets default and max (7, 30), 'package_name' gets an example. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get combined Android Vitals: crash rate and ANR rate per version code.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_anr_rate and get_crash_rate by noting it combines both 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 usage for obtaining combined vitals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the separate rate tools (e.g., get_anr_rate, get_crash_rate). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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