Get Umami Breakdown

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

The annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds some behavioral context about the two modes (detailed vs x/y breakdown rows), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior that might be relevant. No contradictions with annotations.

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 at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides key usage guidance on the 'expanded' parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested filters, enum for 'type') and the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and the critical 'expanded' parameter. However, it could be more complete by briefly noting that other parameters (like 'type' and 'filters') are documented in the schema, but the description relies on the schema for those details, which is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the distinction between 'expanded=true' and 'expanded=false' (detailed metrics vs x/y breakdown rows). This clarifies the parameter's effect on the output format, which is not fully covered in the schema.

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 purpose: 'Get a metric breakdown for a website and time range.' It specifies the resource (metric breakdown), action (get), and scope (website and time range). It also distinguishes between two modes ('expanded=true' vs 'expanded=false'), which differentiates it from siblings.

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 provides guidance on when to use the 'expanded' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like 'umami_get_stats' or 'umami_get_pageviews'. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, making the usage context clear but incomplete.

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