dcs_asset_stats

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description does not contradict it. It adds the useful fact that the payload is aggregate counts (totals plus offline) rather than a record list, but says nothing about counting scope, freshness, or failure behavior, and there is no output schema to cover that.

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 short sentence that leads immediately with the read nature and the two data points returned. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 zero-argument, non-destructive read tool, the description plus the readOnlyHint give an agent enough to call it correctly, and it names the returned metrics since no output schema exists. It is slightly short on scope—whether 'offline' is a time-windowed or current-state count—but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the schema is complete by construction. Baseline 4 applies because the description has no semantic gap to fill.

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 verb and resource ('Read asset totals and offline counts'), which distinguishes it from the listing tool dcs_assets and from the error tool dcs_asset_errors. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the aggregation framing makes its role recognizable.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points at an alternative such as dcs_assets for per-asset detail or dcs_status for system health. The '[READ]' prefix is a convention hint, not usage guidance, so the choice among stats tools is left to inference.

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