aggregate-rum

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or side effects. Simply stating 'aggregate' is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose and features. It is front-loaded with the verb 'aggregate' and includes key operations. Could benefit from slight expansion without being verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the typical use case (time series analysis), the meaning of RUM data, or the nature of the result. Schema does heavy lifting but description lacks complementary context.

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 baseline is 3. Description mentions grouping and statistical computations but adds no extra meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions. Not harmful but also not additive.

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?

Description clearly states it aggregates RUM data using statistical computations (count, avg, percentiles) and grouping by fields. It distinguishes from sibling aggregate tools (e.g., aggregate-logs) by specifying the RUM data source.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-rum-events or other aggregate tools. The description implies usage for aggregation queries but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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