analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses deprecation, defines two behavioral modes, and lists associated parameters. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error behavior, or whether this is purely read-only, though the analytics nature implies a query operation.

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 compact and well-structured, with the deprecation warning front-loaded and modes presented clearly. There is minor redundancy between the opening line and the mode descriptions, but no wasted words overall.

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 output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. The description covers modes, deprecation, and parameter mapping. It remains incomplete around parameter semantics and when exactly to fall back to this tool versus 'review', leaving some ambiguity for invocation.

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 must compensate. It maps 'optimization_type' and 'limit' to the optimization mode and 'limit' to the usage mode, which adds useful structure beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain acceptable values for 'optimization_type' or the precise meaning of 'limit' beyond the schema's type and default.

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 states a clear purpose: providing analytics on optimization effectiveness and usage patterns. It further clarifies by defining two distinct modes, 'optimization' and 'usage', with explicit outputs for each. While the deprecation note adds context, it doesn't obscure what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer review', giving the agent a clear alternative and strongly signaling not to use this tool unless necessary. The phrase 'Still registered this minor version' implies a fallback/backward-compatibility role. It doesn't detail conditional cases, but the deprecation guidance is unambiguous.

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