instructions_get_responses_aggregate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that results are grouped/counted and frames the tool as read-oriented, but it does not clarify what the aggregated output looks like, how counts are derived, or any pagination/limit behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that combines what the tool does and why it is useful. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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 tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the exact aggregation shape and behavior around pageSize/local implicit. It provides enough to select the tool, but not quite enough to fully anticipate the result without further investigation.

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 only 33%, with only 'local' documented. The description does not compensate by explaining instructionId or pageSize; instructionId is implied by the tool name and pageSize by convention, but low coverage means the description should add more parameter-level clarity and does not.

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 operation: get aggregated/grouped/counted responses for an instruction. It is clear and the 'aggregated' qualifier helps distinguish it from raw-response tools like instructions_get_responses, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a concrete use case: survey-style instructions that return the same values from many devices. This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as instructions_get_responses or instructions_get_statistics.

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