Tool Activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('read-only aggregation over the Qdrant response store'), return format ('text dashboard... with sample point IDs per group'), and an error condition ('Analytics failed' when the response store is unreachable). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for this tool the provided behavioral details are substantive.

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 well structured with labeled segments ('Use when', 'Behavior', 'Returns', 'Errors'), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: what it returns (text dashboard), how it groups, what error to expect, and when to use alternatives. All three optional parameters are already covered by the schema, so nothing needed for this tool is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions grouping by tool_name or user_email, which mirrors the group_by schema description, but does not add new semantic detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show usage analytics for this server's tools: call counts, error rates, last-used times'), and later explicitly contrasts with fetch_document and search, distinguishing its purpose. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use when' guidance ('answering what has been used or failing lately'), plus clear redirections: 'pass a sample point ID to fetch_document' and 'use search instead'. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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