ym_counter

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating 'Get counter details'. The mention of field options is useful but not sufficiently explained.

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 very short but the second sentence is cryptic and not well-structured. Could be improved with clearer formatting (e.g., 'field options: goals, mirrors, grants, filters, operation').

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it fails to explain the field parameter's role or that counter_id is required. The cryptic field list leaves ambiguity, making it incomplete for agent use.

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's listing of 'goals,mirrors,grants,filters,operation' attempts to add meaning to the 'field' parameter, but it is cryptic and does not clarify that these are possible values. The counter_id parameter is not mentioned.

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 'Get counter details', which clearly identifies the action and object. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ym_counters' (likely a list tool), leaving some ambiguity about when to use which.

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 lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios, making it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.

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