analytics_sliding_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action ('fetch') without any details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, leaving the agent uninformed about how the tool operates.

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 extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. In terms of structure, it is minimal but not misleadingly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to operate the tool effectively in context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters—it mentions no parameter names, purposes, or formats. This leaves all parameters undocumented, severely hindering the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Fetch analytics sliding window' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'fetch' and resource 'analytics sliding window', but provides no details about what analytics are fetched, what a sliding window entails, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'analytics_fixed_window'. This leaves the purpose vague and indistinguishable from 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'analytics_fixed_window' for comparison. This absence of usage guidelines makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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