get_wakelock_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool fetches data (likely read-only) and specifies the temporal scope (daily, past days parameter). It also notes a potential consequence (penalization). However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the tool requires specific permissions. The behavioral disclosure is moderate.

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 no extra verbiage. It efficiently conveys purpose, return data, and parameter details in a short paragraph and bullet-like Args list. The front-loading of purpose is good. Slight improvement could be separating the return description into a more structured format.

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 medium complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the return value and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits) and does not fully define the output shape beyond a brief mention. It is neither comprehensive nor insufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section adds meaningful context: package_name example, days default and max, version_code optional. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema types. The description also explains the return value structure, indirectly linking to parameter effects.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'stuck background wake lock rate from Android Vitals'. It specifies the return data (daily rate and distinctUsers by version code) and hints at the importance (excessive wakelock may be penalized). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_anr_rate or get_crash_rate, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions that excessive wakelock holding may be penalized, providing some context for when to use the tool, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give explicit conditions or exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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