gateway_telemetry_usage_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's permission note ('Requires telemetry:read') adds a small behavioral detail. The phrase 'approximate or actual' hints that results may not be exact, which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or limitations. Given the annotation coverage, the added value is modest, justifying a mid-range score.

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 a single sentence and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and no schema documentation, this extreme brevity is insufficient. It is concise but sacrifices necessary detail, making it a borderline case. The structure is simple but not helpful for usability.

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 has 6 parameters, zero schema coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not specify how filters work, what the output summary contains, or how to interpret the result. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of parameter semantics and usage context makes the tool almost unusable without external documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for parameters like days, agent, limit, project, skill_id, and source_quality. The description does not mention any of these parameters or their purpose, leaving the agent completely in the dark. This is a critical failure for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 an agent usage summary, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('agent usage summary'). It is distinguishable from siblings like gateway_telemetry_skill_stats and gateway_telemetry_usage_report, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The phrase 'approximate or actual' adds a slight nuance but the core purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other telemetry tools. It only mentions a permission requirement ('Requires telemetry:read'), which is a constraint, not a usage condition. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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