get_event_counters

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return content but does not explicitly state the tool is non-destructive or read-only. It mentions 'single call' but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions. Adequate but not fully 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?

Two efficient sentences: first covers purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and alternatives. No filler or 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?

No output schema, but description lists categories of metrics (CPU, memory, GC, threading, exceptions, JIT). It does not describe return structure or units, and lacks handling of edge cases (e.g., process not found). Still, for a broad overview tool with sibling tools for depth, it is reasonably complete.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (pid and sampleSeconds). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool returns all EventCounter metrics from a .NET process, listing specific categories (CPU, memory, GC, threading, exceptions, JIT). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a broad overview tool, with explicit follow-up recommendations.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'for a broad health overview when you don't know which specific area to investigate.' It also names alternatives for deeper analysis: 'follow up with get_memory_stats or get_thread_stats.'

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