get_dau

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the call is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness. The mention of 'breakdowns' is insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the core functionality without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with good schema coverage, but lacks details about the output format (e.g., time series, aggregated counts). Since there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about what the breakdowns entail.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the 'breakdowns' for CLI, cloud agent, and Bugbot, which are not explicit in the schema parameters, enhancing understanding of the data returned.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'daily active users over time', with specific breakdowns for CLI, cloud agent, and Bugbot usage. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_daily_usage', which may overlap in purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_daily_usage' or other get tools. The description implies it is for daily active users with breakdowns, but lacks context on scenarios or exclusions.

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