aggregate-rum-events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the aggregation and grouping behavior but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or permissions needed. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences: the first defines functionality, the second provides examples. It is front-loaded and concise with no unnecessary words.

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 tool with three nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage examples. It lacks details on the return format or how filter interacts, but the schema fills many gaps. Adequate for the complexity.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It lists aggregation types and gives example queries, but does not explain parameter semantics in more depth than the schema already does.

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 aggregates RUM events with specific compute operations and group-by facets, and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'RUM events' and the aggregation verbs.

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 explicit example use cases ('RUM page load times by country', etc.), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the examples are clear and differentiate from other tools.

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