get_learning_signals

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, already indicating safe read behavior. The description adds valuable context: it retrieves from a specific file, returns signals with optional summary statistics, and details what statistics are included (success rate, top skills, bot activity, average ratings). No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and resource, then lists the return value and use case. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain returns. It does so thoroughly: 'Returns signals with optional summary statistics: success rate by action type, top skills by effectiveness, bot activity, average ratings.' It also specifies the source file. For a read-only data retrieval tool with 6 optional params, the description is 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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'optional summary statistics' relating to the 'summarize' parameter but does not explain other parameters (bot, limit, outcome, min_rating, action_type) beyond what the schema provides. It adds little extra meaning for parameter semantics.

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 that the tool retrieves and analyzes historical learning signals from a specific file, lists the available summary statistics, and explains the use case (identifying performance strengths/weaknesses). The verb 'Retrieve and analyze' and resource 'state/learning_signals.jsonl' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'capture_learning_signal'.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to identify where agent performance is strongest/weakest and drive improvement priorities.' It implies when to use this tool for analysis purposes but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'capture_learning_signal' for storing signals.

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