get_usage_analytics

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), indicating this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying the types of analytics returned (memory usage, category distribution, time patterns, graph statistics), which gives context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 moderately concise but has structural issues. It starts with a clear purpose statement, but includes a redundant 'Keywords' section that repeats terms already in the description. The bulleted list of provided information is useful, but the usage examples could be integrated more smoothly. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but some sentences (like the keyword list) don't earn their place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what analytics are returned, supported by annotations that clarify behavioral traits. However, it doesn't detail the output format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a read-only analytics tool, it covers most essentials but leaves some ambiguity about result presentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (type, timeRange, detailed) including enums and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'all' type or timeRange options. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'retrieving usage analysis and statistics' in Korean, with English keywords reinforcing this. It lists specific types of information provided (memory usage, category distribution, time patterns, graph statistics), making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_complexity' or 'get_memory_graph', which appear related but have different scopes.

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?

The description provides usage examples in Korean ('show usage statistics', 'memory analysis'), which give some implied context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'analyze_complexity' or 'get_memory_graph', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The examples are helpful but insufficient for clear differentiation.

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