get_ux_insights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially meets it: 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses auth behavior (token optional, falls back to CLARITY_API_TOKEN) plus the response shape. It does not state rate limits, quota semantics beyond mentioning quota status is returned, or the 1-3 day API constraint rationale.

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded with purpose and scannable, and each line carries real information. Mild redundancy in restating parameter names and the Returns enumeration duplicating what the output schema already provides, but nothing is bloated.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three params, the description covers inputs, auth fallback, and output surface, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is largely redundant. The one substantive gap is sibling positioning against get_frustration_breakdown and get_js_errors, which an agent would need to avoid redundant calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: project_id gets a concrete format example ('yz5idaioq2'), num_of_days is constrained to the allowed values (1, 2, or 3 days) with its default restated, and token documents environment-variable fallback behavior that appears nowhere in the schema. All three parameters are meaningfully enriched.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve ... UX insights') and enumerates the content domains covered (frustration rates, technical health, session overview, rage/dead clicks, JS errors). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_frustration_breakdown, get_js_errors, or doctor, whose subject matter clearly overlaps with the listed return categories.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or routing logic. Given sibling tools that cover frustration breakdown and JS errors in depth, an agent cannot tell from this description whether get_ux_insights is the high-level first look or a redundant aggregate — the description never names an alternative.

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