Repstack.Compute Metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it declares statelessness/determinism, the output summary, and the needs_clarification behavior for oversized payloads. It does not disclose limits like the actual max_sessions/max_sets values, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 packed into four sentences with the core action and statelessness front-loaded, followed by input options, filtering, and outputs. No filler is present, though it would be slightly easier to scan with light structure.

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 output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values; it covers inputs, optional filtering, and overflow behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of concrete canonical-session field definitions or the numeric limits, but for a tool with a mostly self-describing domain the description is adequate.

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?

The input schema is a single opaque 'payload' object with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the two payload variants, the shape of logs entries, and the optional range object. It could still define the canonical session object, but the main calling contract is clear.

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-resource pair: 'Compute deterministic metrics from provided canonical data.' It also lists the exact outputs (weekly volume, tonnage, e1rm, PRs, volume_spike flags), which distinguishes it from the ingest and search 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?

It clearly defines acceptable inputs ('sessions' or 'logs') and an optional 'range' filter, so an agent knows what shape to pass. It implies the tool is for post-ingestion analysis over already-canonical data, but it never explicitly names ingest_log or search_exercises as alternatives or states when not to use this tool.

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