get_insights

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Aggregates verdict counts and average score across this agent's verify_output history.' It also explains the return format in detail, including the non-obvious note about pass_rate_pct being 0-100 not 0-1. This goes beyond annotations.

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 concise—two short paragraphs plus structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose, every sentence adds value, and the structured format improves readability. No wasted words.

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 simple input (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input, output, and usage context completely. It explains the aggregation behavior, the return fields with types and ranges, and the intended use case. The sibling tools are diverse, but the description sufficiently situates this 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly documents the sole parameter agent_id with 'The agent identifier to look up.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title. The return values are also fully described, compensating for any missing schema detail.

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 retrieves aggregated VOP performance statistics for an agent. It specifies the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('VOP performance statistics'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_output and check_verdict by noting it aggregates historical data for evaluating an agent's track record.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to evaluate an agent's track record before relying on its output.' This gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings.

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