get_telemetry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that argument values are never logged and describes the return structure. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or non-destructive, though that's implied.

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 informative but concise; it front-loads the purpose and uses clear structure. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly outlines the return structure: 'records_total, window_days, tools[], inactive[], markdown'. It covers all necessary context for a telemetry aggregation tool.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'days (window, default 30)' and 'include_inactive (bool, default true)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has type and default.

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 it aggregates tool-usage logs and lists specific metrics (most called, error rates, latency, unused tools). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all about spec analysis and testing.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use when a user asks what the AI is actually using / which tools are slow / which tools are unused'. Also explains default arguments and return format, covering usage context comprehensively.

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