get_tally

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the domain semantics of the return (which sources are live on Program vs Preview), which is useful context, but it never states that this is a non-mutating read or anything about freshness, polling, or result shape.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the interpretive gloss placed after an em dash. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and it does explain the substance of what comes back (per-input Program/Preview status). It stops short of describing the result structure or how quickly the state reflects a transition, which is the only real gap for a zero-argument read.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The sentence about Program vs Preview is about the result, not an argument.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get tally state for all inputs') and then defines the domain term by unpacking it into Program vs Preview sources. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_switcher_state and get_stream_state, though no sibling is named or explicitly ruled out.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_switcher_state or list_sources, and no note on polling cadence or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the semantics of 'tally'.

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