get_interface_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read operation, mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limits. The tool's behavior is opaque.

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 short (three words), which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks front-loaded essential information and wastes the opportunity to clarify the tool's function.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'interface analytics' entails, what data is returned, or how the parameters affect results.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (project_id, owner_id). Their purpose and required format are unexplained, forcing reliance on the parameter names alone.

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 'Resume uso por interfaz' is Spanish for 'Resume usage by interface,' which vaguely suggests retrieving usage summaries per interface but lacks specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_project_timeline or get_active_warnings, and the verb 'resume' is ambiguous.

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. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction.

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