telemetry_send

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: asynchronous processing (so no immediate result to inspect), a hard 100-event batch limit, and the notable fact that data is always sent to api.storno.ro regardless of configured base URL — which matches openWorldHint=true and matters for privacy/proxy setups. It does not say what happens when the limit is exceeded or whether failures are retried, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what, async behavior, batch limit, endpoint override), with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or annotations.

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?

Covers the operational essentials for a fire-and-forget write tool with no output schema: batching limit, async semantics, and destination endpoint. Auth requirements and failure/retry behavior are unstated, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes the batch-size constraint on the events array and frames the company context that companyId controls. The platform parameter and timestamp defaulting are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 (Send) and resource (batch of telemetry events) plus the scope (current user and company). No sibling tool competes in this namespace, so an agent can identify it immediately, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from anything else.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — an agent infers it should call this when it has telemetry events to report — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of whether earlier batching or deferral is preferred. The 100-event cap gives a practical batching hint but not a selection rule.

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