engineering_query_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the routing mechanism but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It also omits information about error handling, rate limits, or required permissions.

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 89 words and includes a docstring-style 'Args:' section. It is relatively concise but could be more front-loaded with the tool's purpose rather than the routing mechanism. Every sentence adds value, but a slightly more compact structure would improve it.

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 has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. With 2 parameters and low complexity, the description covers the basic function and routing. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides meaningful context beyond the default values and type information 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 it runs the engineering domain agent action 'query_analytics', distinguishing it from other engineering tools like engineering_chat or engineering_compare_model_versions. It specifies the verb 'Run' and the resource 'analytics query', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like engineering_chat or other query tools. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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