polaris_insights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: 'Read' establishes read-only behavior and the sketch '{scope, scopeId, generatedAt, status}' discloses the return shape. But it omits auth/permission requirements, pagination behavior for limit/cursor/all_pages, and what 'retained' evaluations implies for freshness.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact per-action list, with no filler. The final sentence on return shape is somewhat dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action-to-parameter mapping and gives a partial return sketch, which is meaningful. It still leaves pagination semantics, error/status meanings, and the relationship to sibling data tools undefined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents which id parameter each action requires and notes that limit/cursor/all_pages are optional and scoped to target_history. It stops short of explaining cursor format or pagination limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read insight aggregates computed from retained evaluations') and enumerates three concrete action modes with distinct scopes. It implicitly separates itself from polaris_evaluations (the raw source), though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Maps each action to its required parameter, which functions as implicit when-to-use guidance, and the '(no league table)' note hints at a boundary for tribe_overview. However, it never states when to choose this tool over polaris_evaluations or polaris_fitness_targets, nor any preconditions.

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