get_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only (fetching saved insights) and mentions caching via the 'refresh' parameter, but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., non-existent IDs), performance implications, or authentication requirements. Sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 long, front-loads the action and resource, and avoids filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should provide context on return values. It says 'return its result data' but does not describe the structure or content of that data. Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects), this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the response format.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The 'refresh' parameter's purpose is clearly stated in the schema, and the description does not expand on 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('PostHog insight by ID') and mentions common use cases (funnels, retention, trend charts). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'query_trends' which likely handle ad-hoc queries rather than saved insights, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 states when to use the tool ('retrieve saved insights') and provides examples, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'query_trends' for ad-hoc analysis. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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