yaaif_telemetry_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' plus 'from the active client state directory' clearly indicates a non-mutating local read, and 'anonymous' addresses data sensitivity. It does not detail error behavior or counter semantics, but for a simple getter this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the action, the data scope, the anonymity, and the source location.

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 no parameters and a low-complexity read operation, the description provides the essential source and data categories. The lack of an output schema means the exact return shape is unspecified, but 'opt-in state and counters' is enough for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's specification of what data is read is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('anonymous local telemetry opt-in state and counters'), and a source location ('active YAA\F client state directory'). This distinguishes it from siblings like yaaif_telemetry_set (a setter) and yaaif_ops_telemetry (broader operational telemetry).

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling is mentioned. However, the qualifiers 'anonymous local' and 'client state directory' weakly imply this is for local client telemetry rather than broader ops telemetry, giving some usage context.

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