analyze_pillar_performance

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: data comes from cached metrics and unmapped videos are placed in a 'não classificado' bucket. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate edge-case grouping behavior.

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?

Three focused sentences: the core aggregation and ranking behavior, the unmapped-video edge case, and the data source. There is no filler, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 covers the main grouping behavior and the unmapped bucket, but it omits any explanation of the optional date parameters, which are the only inputs. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how start_date and end_date affect the aggregation, whether they default to a full range, or what date format is expected. The description adds no meaning to either parameter beyond the bare names.

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 names a specific verb ('Group each mapped video's watch time and retention'), a specific resource ('content pillar (config/pilares.json)'), and a specific output behavior ('rank pillars by minutes watched'). It clearly distinguishes itself from broader channel metrics and retention curve siblings by focusing on pillar aggregation.

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 usage context is clear: use this when you need pillar-level aggregation and ranking rather than channel-wide or per-video metrics. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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