agy_get_token_savings

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral meaning. It does: 'Returns ... analytics and history' signals a read-only aggregation over all delegations with no filtering or side effects. It does not explain response shape, but with zero parameters no hidden inputs or mutation risks are apparent.

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 focused sentence that states the return type (analytics/history), scope (lifetime, all delegations), and subject (context window saved). No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only aggregate tool, the description is nearly complete. It does not enumerate the exact output fields, but there is no output schema and the description gives enough shape for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. There is no parameter ambiguity, and the description confirms the tool takes no scope/filter arguments by calling it 'lifetime' and 'across all delegations.'

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: lifetime token savings analytics and history across all delegations. It immediately distinguishes this tool from operationally-oriented siblings like get_status or execute.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs overall token savings/history data. It names no alternatives, but the tool's read-only aggregate scope makes its usage context reasonably unambiguous.

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