telemetry_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-oriented retrieval ('Retrieves'), which implies no destructive side effects, but it does not disclose operational details such as response shape, snapshot vs. stream behavior, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

One front-loaded, scannable line with a useful label ('Live Dashboard') followed by a single sentence. Every phrase contributes information and there is no repetition or filler.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what data is available (metrics, session, counts, audit log). The absence of an output schema means a bit more detail on return structure or format would improve it, but it remains usable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add to the schema. The enumerated result categories (providers, session, counts, audit log) give useful context about what the returned data covers.

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 action ('Retrieves real-time metrics') with a specific resource ('Live Dashboard') and enumerates exact data categories: 11 providers, active Studio session, capability counts, and mutation audit log. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling audit or output tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Live Dashboard' and 'real-time metrics' phrasing implies this is the tool for up-to-date telemetry and session status, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of more suitable siblings for audit-only or output-focused needs.

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