Local Coder Telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about privacy preservation and exact per-model usage, but it does not disclose operational behaviors such as whether the data is cached, how freshness behaves, or what aggregation period is used beyond the implicit 'days' parameter.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key concept (aggregation of telemetry) and then specifies the notable detail (per-model Ollama inference usage). There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 telemetry tool with no output schema, the description explains the data scope well but omits the 'days' parameter and any indication of the return format (e.g., summary stats, time series, per-model breakdowns). Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is adequate but leaves the aggregation window and output shape to be inferred.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. The parameter itself is inferable from its name and constraints (default 30, max 3650), but the description leaves the aggregation window entirely implicit, which is a notable gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 ('Aggregate') and clearly identifies the resource: privacy-preserving routing/execution/orchestration telemetry, including exact per-model Ollama inference usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like local_coder_health or get_local_run, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as local_coder_health or get_local_run. The description implies a telemetry/aggregation use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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