get_launches_trends

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations; it simply states what data is returned. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing the safety profile. No contradictions or extra risks are mentioned, but no additional useful behavior details (e.g., performance, date limits) are disclosed beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and key outputs without excessive length. The phrase 'and more' is mildly vague but does not bloat the sentence, and every other part conveys useful information.

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 read-only analytics tool with well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the kinds of data returned. It does not explain the dynamic behavior of the 'include' parameter or the meaning of 'topN' but those are adequately described in the schema, so the description is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains every parameter. The description's list of trend categories ('pass rates, failing tests, flaky tests, duration trends') loosely reinforces the enum values of the 'include' parameter but does not provide new semantic meaning about any specific parameter.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive trend data for a project' and lists concrete outputs (pass rates, failing tests, flaky tests, duration trends). It distinguishes from siblings like get_launch_tests and get_launches_statistics by focusing on trend data, though it does not explicitly name or compare alternatives.

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 implies usage for when trend data is needed but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over get_launches_statistics or get_launch_tests. There are no when-not statements or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the word 'trends'.

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