wacta_analytics_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response format (JSON) and the specific data sections returned, which accurately conveys the tool's observable behavior. It does not address permissions or side effects, but the read-only nature is clear from the 'dashboard' framing and content.

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 a single but impactful sentence that front-loads the core identity and then lists all response components. It is dense but every segment adds value, and the use of enumerations helps readability.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a substantial inventory of the response components, making it easy to understand what the dashboard returns. While it lacks detailed definitions of each component, the names are self-explanatory and the context is sufficient.

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 only parameter 'days' has 100% schema coverage with an enum (7, 30, 90) and a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra parameter context, but the schema already fully documents it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as an Analytics & UX panel in JSON and enumerates its contents (totals, visitors, pages, CTAs, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling wacta_analytics_ctas by being a broader dashboard, though the differentiation is not explicit.

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 implies usage for retrieving an analytics overview, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare against wacta_analytics_ctas, leaving the agent to infer the scope.

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