agent_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only (getting analytics) but does not confirm safety, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds some value by listing what metrics are included, but lacks detail on data volume or performance.

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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Perfectly 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 fails to describe the output format or structure (e.g., JSON object, counts, trends). Since there is no output schema, this is a gap. It mentions the types of data but not how they are presented. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters adequately (api_key and period). The description adds no additional param details beyond the schema; it lists analytics types but that is not parameter-related. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides usage analytics for an agent, listing specific types (messages, tasks, attestations, reputation) and indicating it's over time. The verb 'get' and resource 'usage analytics' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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 aggregated analytics tool versus individual metric tools (e.g., agent_get_attestation, agent_get_trust). The description implies it's for a summary view, but lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice.

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