get_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It details the output content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, permissions needed, or side effects. The implied read-only nature of a 'get' tool is insufficient for a higher score.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying the purpose and use case with no redundancy or filler. It is well front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the output qualitatively (list of insights) and provides a use case. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% for the single parameter (project_id), so the schema already describes it well. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 gets a 'memory health dashboard' with specific insights like most recalled, never-recalled, stale memories, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stale_memories (which focuses only on stale memories) by offering a broader overview.

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 says to use this tool to 'identify cleanup opportunities and understand memory usage patterns,' giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_stale_memories or list_memories.

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