query_stuck_wakelock_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the metric formula, the denominator ('users doing any work on the device'), that distinctUsers is included by default, and the daily-only aggregation constraint. It does not describe response shape, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond what structured fields would show.

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 four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence provides useful information—metric definition, denominator, rolling-average options, and aggregation constraint. The phrase 'Another battery-drain metric' is mildly redundant but not wasteful enough to lower the score further.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters, the description covers the essential semantic context: what the metric means, its user denominator, default companion metric, rolling-average alternatives, and aggregation limitation. It does not explain return-value structure or compare with sibling tools, but it is largely complete for invocation purposes.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by naming valid metric values (stuckBgWakelockRate7dUserWeighted and stuckBgWakelockRate28dUserWeighted) and explicitly stating that only DAILY aggregation is supported. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Metrics to fetch' description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the stuck background wakelock rate' and then precisely defines the metric as stuckBgWakelockRate (share of distinct users holding a PowerManager wakelock in the background over one hour). It clearly identifies the metric's identity, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling battery-drain tools like query_excessive_wakeup_rate.

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 gives operational guidance: use stuckBgWakelockRate7dUserWeighted or stuckBgWakelockRate28dUserWeighted for rolling averages, and use DAILY aggregation only. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling metrics such as query_excessive_wakeup_rate or query_slow_rendering_rate, so the use-case guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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