coda_get_pack_analytics_summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint), idempotent (idempotentHint), and non-deterministic but safe (openWorldHint). The description adds the access restriction and specific return metrics, which are not conveyed by annotations. It does not disclose other traits like rate limits or pagination, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that effectively communicate the purpose, output, and access restriction. There is no unnecessary information, and the key details are 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 core purpose, return metrics, and access restriction. However, it does not mention the optional filtering capabilities (pack_ids, is_published, date ranges) that are evident in the schema. While the schema covers these, the agent might benefit from knowing that the summary can be scoped. Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The tool description does not provide any additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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: 'Get aggregated analytics summary for packs.' It specifies the exact resources (packs) and the metrics returned (total installs, doc usage, formula invocations). This distinguished it from sibling tools like coda_list_pack_analytics, which provide per-pack detail, and coda_get_doc_analytics_summary, which is per-doc.

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 mentions the access restriction ('Only available to pack makers'), which helps the agent determine when not to use it. It implies the tool is for aggregated data rather than per-pack analytics via the phrase 'summed across packs', distinguishing it from list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide when-not scenarios.

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