vs_analytics

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it shows specific performance metrics (throughput, latency, etc.), which adds value. However, it lacks details like time range or data freshness. Score 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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 concise: a clear purpose statement, a usage suggestion, and parameter documentation. No fluff. Front-loaded with [READ] and key information. Score 5.

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?

For a simple analytics tool with one parameter and output schema, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., VS must exist) and does not describe the output structure (though output schema may cover that). It also does not mention any time range defaults. Overall adequate but not complete. Score 3.

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 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds 'Virtual Service name' for the parameter, which is minimal. It does not explain naming conventions, validation rules, or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more. Score 2.

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 the tool shows analytics with specific metrics (throughput, latency percentiles, connection rate, error breakdown). The [READ] tag and verb 'Show' indicate read-only. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like vs_status (likely general status) and vs_error_logs (raw errors).

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 provides a use case: 'investigate performance issues.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternative tools for different scenarios. With many sibling tools, an agent might need more guidance.

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