Response Codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'breakdown' – no mention of aggregation, date-range handling, or what the response represents. It essentially restates the title without revealing any non-obvious behavior.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and completely free of fluff. However, it is nearly tautological with the tool title 'Response Codes' and carries little informative weight, so it is not a model of rich conciseness.

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 4-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the breakdown contains, how from/to and time_span affect results, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to infer all of this from the tool name and the bare schema, which is a clear completeness gap.

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 75%: env_id, to, and from have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, and time_span remains undocumented both in the description and in the schema (only an enum list is provided). This matches the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Get response code breakdown.' This is clearly distinct from sibling analytics tools like top-countries or visits, and the resource (response codes) is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by name or clarify that 'response codes' refers to HTTP status codes, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling analytics tools, nor any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit context is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and related analytics endpoints.

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