Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "read-only" restates structured data rather than adding to it. Nothing is said about how expensive these queries are, whether results are cached, or what happens with a missing/invalid projectId; with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the action enum's own schema description, keeping it from a 5.

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 five-way report dispatcher with six parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing at what each report actually returns (time series? scalar? table?) and at expected cost or latency. It is adequate to invoke the tool but not to predict or use the results confidently.

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 100%, and the schema already documents defaults and per-report applicability for lastN, bucket, sprintId, sinceDays, and projectId. The description adds only the action-selection hint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Read-only project analytics") and enumerates the five report types (sprint velocity, burndown, cycle time, throughput, project summary), which is enough to distinguish it from management siblings like manage_sprints or manage_iterations. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the analysis-oriented sibling ai_analyze, so it stops 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?

"Use the `action` field to select the report" tells the agent how to switch reports but not when this tool is the right choice versus ai_analyze or the manage_* tools. No conditions for choosing between sprint_velocity, cycle_time, or project_summary are given, leaving selection to inference from the enum names.

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