get_wakeup_rate

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

Discloses that frequent CPU wakeups above thresholds may be penalized, adding context beyond fetching data. However, it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. With no annotations, the description carries some burden but is only moderately transparent.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be more bullet-point friendly. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple fetch tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, and parameter details. Lacks specifics on output format or threshold definitions, and there is no output schema. Adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: package_name with an example, days with default and max, version_code as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 fetches 'excessive CPU wakeup rate from Android Vitals', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_anr_rate or get_crash_rate by focusing on wakeup rate, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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