Telemetry counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: counts reflect only retained entries, and oldest entries are dropped once storage reaches maxEntries. This helps the agent interpret results correctly, though it doesn't detail return format or exact counts semantics.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, retention caveat, and usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 parameterless, read-only summary tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what counts are shown, how retention affects the data, and how to proceed using sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the simple nature of the result makes this acceptable.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description effectively communicates that no inputs are needed and that the tool provides a snapshot of current telemetry counts.

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 counts entries of each type currently retained by Telescope, using a specific verb ('How many entries... holding') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its aggregate summary nature rather than individual records.

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 routes the agent: 'Read it first... then drill in with recent_exceptions or recent_requests.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's place in the workflow.

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