get_wakelock_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and describes the return data (daily rates and distinctUsers). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or idempotency, but the behavioral details are adequate for a fetch tool.

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 (6 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a blank line separating overview from args, but it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

Despite lacking output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, and parameter details. It does not mention authentication or error handling, but for a simple data fetch tool, it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description's 'Args' section adds thorough meaning: example for package_name, default and max for days, optional nature for version_code. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 fetches 'stuck background wake lock rate from Android Vitals,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_anr_rate' and 'get_crash_rate' by focusing on wakelock data.

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 explains the metric (daily rates by version) and mentions that excessive wakelock may be penalized, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'get_wakeup_rate' or state when not to use.

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