vs_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: the fixed 12-sample/5-minute window that cannot be changed, and the non-obvious empty-output semantics meaning no traffic rather than an error. This fully informs the agent of behavioral edge cases.

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?

Four short sentences each earn their place: the purpose, the metric/window detail, the empty-output signal, and the usage guidance. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the fixed time window, empty result behavior, and when to choose this tool versus its sibling.

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 the schema already fully documents vs_name as an exact, case-sensitive Virtual Service name from vs_list. The description adds no meaning for the parameter beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific action and resource: returns performance metrics for one Virtual Service over the last hour. It differentiates itself from siblings by specifying L4 and L7 metric categories, making it clear this is the analytics tool rather than vs_status or vs_error_logs.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: when vs_status shows degraded health. It also names the alternative for per-request detail (vs_error_logs), giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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