nodes_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'returns usage counts for APIs and aggregations', which gives some behavioral insight into output format. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that likely queries system statistics.

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 appropriately sized with three short lines: purpose, parameters, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error cases, which are important for a tool that interacts with system data. The return value is mentioned but not detailed, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'node_id' as optional node ID and 'metric' as statistic type (rest_actions/aggregations). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format or constraints for 'node_id' or explain what 'rest_actions' and 'aggregations' entail.

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 states '获取节点功能使用统计' (Get node function usage statistics), which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('node function usage statistics'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes_stats' or 'nodes_info' that also provide node-related information, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other node-related tools like 'nodes_stats' or 'cluster_stats', leaving the agent without usage context.

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