telemetry_report

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

The description states 'Read-only', which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but goes beyond it by adding a significant non-obvious behavior: 'No-op (empty report) when telemetry recording is disabled.' This is valuable context not available in structured data. It also notes the 'rolling window' aspect, adding operational detail about data recency.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and packs in the purpose, usage context, and an edge-case behavior. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every clause contributes to understanding, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the report contains, how it is ranked, when to use it, and what happens when telemetry is disabled. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not describe the expected return shape (list, object) or field names, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'window_days' with a description and default. The description mentions 'over a rolling window' but does not add new details about the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as the 'arteffect-engagement telemetry report'. It details the content (skills/rules ranked by consult+apply signals) and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills or capabilities_index, which are general artifact listings. The inclusion of 'essential / useful / retirement-candidate' categories further clarifies the specific purpose.

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 sentence 'Use to see which artifacts are actually load-bearing' provides a clear use case for when to invoke this tool. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the focus on telemetry signals implies it is the right choice over generic listing tools. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide appropriately, but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.

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