get_team_analytics

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

No annotations are present, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It mentions the endpoint is GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The list of allowed metrics helps, but more transparency (e.g., 'requires analyst role') would improve the score.

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 structured with a metric list and parameter explanations. It is reasonably concise for the amount of information, though the metrics could be bulleted for clarity. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and provides a list of allowed metrics. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor omissions like default pagination behavior prevent a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: metric, start_date, end_date, users, page, page_size, include, repo, pr_number, dry_run. It provides allowed values, formats, and conditions (e.g., 'include is required for conversation-insights'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 fetches a team analytics metric with a specific endpoint (GET /analytics/team/{metric}) and lists all allowed metrics. The verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'team analytics metric' are specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on agents, members, and other non-analytics functions.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other analytics-related siblings like get_analytics_by_user or get_daily_usage_data. The context is implied by the metric list, but no direct guidance on alternatives is provided.

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