gnql-timeseries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving data, suggesting read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, require auth, or have side effects. The description is not misleading but could be more explicit about safety and behavioral traits.

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?

Two well-structured sentences that front-load the verb and resource, then add use case and output description. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (IP records in hourly buckets) and its use case. However, it lacks details like result format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling, which would improve completeness for a tool without annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that the tool returns IP records bucketed by hour, tying parameters like query (GNQL), start_time/end_time (time range), and size (per bucket) to the temporal analysis use case.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves hourly GNQL records for a time range, with specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'hourly GNQL records'. It differentiates from non-time-series GNQL tools by mentioning temporal analysis and hourly buckets. Sibling tools like 'gnql-query' and 'gnql-timeseries-stats' exist, but the description does not explicitly contrast with them, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Description implies usage for temporal analysis of IP activity and investigating when IPs were active, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gnql-query' for non-temporal queries. No when-not or exclusion conditions are stated.

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