get_stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "[READ]" marker merely repeats that. Beyond confirming the HTTP verb, it adds no behavioral context such as scope of the statistics, refresh behavior, or whether the data is aggregated.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the tool name and the second line repeats annotation content, so it packs very little value per token despite being brief.

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 read tool with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum clarify the parameter and the scope of the statistics. It provides only the endpoint path, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly or distinguish it from siblings.

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 single parameter "tz" has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so neither source explains what it means (presumably a timezone) or how it affects results. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Get Stats" simply restates the tool name and is a tautology; the only added information is the HTTP route GET /api/system/stats, which hints at system-level scope but does not say what stats are returned. With many siblings (get_bandwidth_stats, get_http_stats, get_status, get_nodes_statistics), there is no differentiation whatsoever.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative sibling tool. An agent has no basis for choosing get_stats over get_bandwidth_stats or get_status.

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