get_command_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether it requires the command to have been run previously, what happens for an unknown command, or whether results are cached or real-time. For a read-analytics tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable disclosure gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness given the information gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no behavioral or usage context, the description is minimal for a tool that reads analytics data and has sibling tools in the same namespace. It is functional but leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to discover by trial.

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 0%, but there is only 1 parameter (command_name) which is fully required and self-explanatory as a field name. The description adds no detail about expected format (e.g., fully qualified name, case sensitivity, or identifier vs display name). With a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but not augmented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get performance analytics for a specific command.' This is clear about what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_performance_trends or get_system_health_alerts by scoping to a specific command. The meaning of 'analytics' itself is somewhat vague — an agent doesn't know what metrics are returned — but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for selecting this over get_performance_trends or other analytics siblings. The description stops at the purpose statement and leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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