adaptive_get_behavior_summary

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It begins with 'Returns' which implies a read-only operation, and it lists the types of data provided, but it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, lack of required permissions, or any limitations. The metric list adds context, but key behavioral traits are left implicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences total. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists specific metrics. No filler or redundant wording exists, and the structure front-loads the key information.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the main categories of returned data, giving the user a clear idea of what to expect. It could mention the format of the aggregates or the time window, but these are not essential given the tool's low complexity.

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 already provides a complete description for the only parameter (window_count, with default of 3), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional explanation about the parameter's effect or usage, so it does not enhance the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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's function: it 'Returns recent behavior aggregates from the BehaviorTracker' and enumerates specific metrics like pane dwell times, command frequency, scroll metrics, alert response times, and takeover duration. This specific verb+resource pairs with an explicit list of outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as adaptive_get_accuracy.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the content implies it is appropriate for retrieving behavior summaries, it does not mention exclusions or mention sibling tools like adaptive_get_accuracy or adaptive_get_recommendation. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use context is provided.

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