roasr_metrics_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Buckets are NOT additive: engagement is an aggregate and reactions/comments/shares are its components (summing them double-counts).' It also explains raw vs buckets. This is valuable context, though it omits other behaviors like auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output options and the critical caveat. No wasted words, but the second sentence is dense and could be split for easier reading.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description explains both return formats (raw and buckets) and the non-additive caveat. It lacks explicit definition of 'value' units and pagination behavior, but the core functionality and key data semantics are covered.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds general context about date windows but does not provide per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Workspace conversions broken down by action type for a date window.' It specifies the resource (workspace conversions), the breakdown dimension (action type), and the scope (date window). It is distinct from siblings by its focus on action-type breakdowns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied from the description: use when you need action-type breakdowns of conversions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like roasr_metrics_summary or roasr_metrics_breakdown, nor any when-not-to-use notes.

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