qobrix_top_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by explaining server-side pagination, the 20,000-record cap, and the resolve=true option to convert UUIDs to names. It mentions the output shape (top N values with counts). It doesn't explicitly state read-only safety, but the aggregation semantics imply it, and the cap warning addresses a key risk.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by behavioral notes and then examples. The multiple examples (four) make it longer than strictly necessary, but each adds concrete context and earns its place. The structure is logical, and the final sentence on 'resolve' is placed at the end as a modifier. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves (pagination, cap, resolve), and includes examples. It doesn't detail the exact output JSON structure beyond 'top N... values with counts', but that is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results. Minor gap: no explanation of what happens if the cap is exceeded or if the field is not aggregatable.

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 already covers 100% of parameter syntax and default values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds notable value by providing concrete example values for 'field' (developer_id, agent, source), 'search' expressions, and explaining the practical meaning of 'resolve'. This goes beyond schema descriptions and helps the agent map parameters to real-world scenarios.

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's function: 'Aggregate records by a field and return the top N most-frequent values with counts.' This goes beyond a simple restatement, providing a specific verb and resource scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools (e.g., qobrix_count, qobrix_aggregate) by focusing on frequency-based ranking of top values.

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 clear usage context, such as 'This tool paginates through all matching records server-side' and 'Caps at 20,000 records for safety; use a search filter to narrow large datasets.' It gives practical examples of when to use it (top developers, lead sources, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., qobrix_aggregate), so it's clear but lacks direct exclusions or alternative references.

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