telemetry_report

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

Given no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is 'Read-only' and discloses the special case of 'No-op (empty report) when telemetry recording is disabled.' No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, no redundant information. First sentence states the main return, second sentence gives usage, third sentence adds behavioral notes. Every sentence 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the report contents (skills and rules ranked by signals) and mentions the rolling window. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect. A slight improvement would be to state the return format, but not strictly required.

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% for the single parameter 'window_days', with its own description and constraints. The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('artefact-engagement telemetry report'), and clearly distinguishes the content ('essential/useful/retirement-candidate skills and rules ranked by recorded consult+apply signals'). It differentiates from sibling list/report tools by focusing on telemetry and load-bearing artifacts.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'Use to see which artifacts are actually load-bearing.' While it does not contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, the purpose is clearly conveyed and the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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