builds__beta_build_usages__metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about the return format ('aggregated time-series data, not individual records') and the endpoint path, providing value beyond the annotations.

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, packed sentence followed by the endpoint. It conveys purpose, output type, and a key exclusion without waste. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two documented parameters and full annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output shape. It could more explicitly define what 'usages metrics' includes, but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: both 'id' and 'limit' have descriptive texts. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without additional value.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('beta build usages metrics'), and the scope ('for a build'). It also distinguishes itself from related metrics tools by specifying 'aggregated time-series data, not individual records', which aligns with the tool's unique purpose among siblings like beta_groups__public_link_usages__metrics.

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 implies appropriate use: when you need aggregated beta build usage metrics for a specific build, and explicitly excludes individual-record queries. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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