tidy_adoption

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

The description clearly discloses a side effect: 'Persists a measurement on every call' and implies cumulative behavior building a series. However, it does not mention whether the tool returns any output, whether it is idempotent, or other potential behaviors.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the list of metrics and then states the persistent measurement behavior. There is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 explains the core behavior (persisting a measurement) but misses essential context such as what the output is (if any), what the measurement represents beyond the listed metrics, and any requirements or environment context. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 no parameters; the schema is empty (properties: {}). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to explain, which is acceptable.

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 lists specific metrics (instance counts, detach rate, etc.) and states it persists a measurement, indicating it records adoption and health metrics, but it does not explicitly say 'records adoption metrics' or clearly define the primary action. It is inferential rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 the many other tidy_* siblings. There is no context, example, or differentiation such as 'use this to record adoption metrics, use tidy_status to check current status.'

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