Raw Reporting API

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

Annotations have readOnlyHint=false (mutation not specified), but the description itself warns it's an escape hatch for any method, implying raw access without checking safety. It adds context beyond annotations by clarifying scope ('ANY Matomo Reporting API method'), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, potential for side effects (some methods may write or manage segments), or rate limits. Since the openWorldHint=false and readOnlyHint=false are provided, the description carries some burden but doesn't fully address behavioral transparency beyond scope. This is a 3 because it adds useful scope context but omits operational traits like error handling or side-effect risk.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then discovery tip. Every sentence earns its place; zero waste. This matches the high calibration example's conciseness.

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?

The tool is complex (escape hatch for any method), but the description gives purpose, context, and discovery method. No output schema is present, but the tool returns arbitrary report data, so a detailed return description isn't feasible. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but could mention error handling or response format (e.g., JSON structure) to be fully complete; still, it's strong for a raw API wrapper.

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%: both `method` and `params` are described in the input schema (e.g., format examples). The description adds a bit of context for discovery (method='API.getReportMetadata'), but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds one useful example.

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 calls any Matomo Reporting API method directly, functioning as an escape hatch for the dedicated matomo_* tools. It uses specific verbs ('escape hatch', 'call ANY', 'Discover') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by listing examples of what dedicated tools don't cover (custom dimensions, funnels, heatmaps, segment management). This exceeds the mid-range calibration by naming an alternative method for discovery.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer the dedicated matomo_* tools; use this for reports they don't cover' and gives a concrete discovery method ('API.getReportMetadata'). This matches the high calibration example (get_calls) which named an alternative tool for filtering; here it names both the preferred alternatives and the fallback context, which is even stronger.

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