agentbay_analytics

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

No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the content of the analytics but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or how errors are handled. This lack of behavioral context reduces transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and the types of analytics returned. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 description provides a list of specific analytics metrics, which gives a good idea of the output. However, it does not mention whether the data is real-time or historical, or if there are any constraints like time range. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but could include more detail about the nature of the analytics.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with a description 'Project ID,' and the description does not elaborate on this parameter beyond the implicit connection to project analytics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add significant additional meaning.

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 with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'project analytics' including specific types like attempt success rates, agent performance, token usage, and trends. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentbay_project_get or agentbay_memory_recall, which have different focuses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning appropriate contexts or exclusions, such as when to prefer other analytics or project tools.

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