matomo_get_top_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for Matomo analytics to provide better context upfront.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list format, fields returned), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and tool name, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'danh sách' (list) which aligns with the limit parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 action ('Lấy danh sách' - 'Get list') and resource ('trang được truy cập nhiều nhất' - 'most accessed pages'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like matomo_get_visits_summary by focusing specifically on top pages rather than general visit statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the Matomo analytics context or differentiate from matomo_get_sites which deals with site metadata.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing siteId), comparison with sibling tools (e.g., matomo_get_visits_summary for aggregated data), or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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