get_interview_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about side effects, permissions, return format, or whether data is aggregated. It offers minimal behavioral transparency beyond the implied non-mutation.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is not bloated or redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what KPIs are included, the time range, whether it is real-time or historical, or how the result is structured. Given many sibling analytics tools, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 a specific resource ('organisation interview KPIs') and a verb ('get'). It is distinct from siblings like get_interview which focuses on a single interview, though it could be confused with get_org_stats or get_interview_analysis if the agent doesn't read carefully. No explicit differentiation is given.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_interview_analysis or get_org_stats. The description gives no context about the intended scenario or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is for org-level KPIs based solely on the name.

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