rsi_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses very little: nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, the fact that export=true writes files to disk, cost/latency, or what the returned summary looks like. The one behavioral side effect an agent would care about (file export) is only visible in the schema, not the description.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. But the description is given twice (English then Chinese) with no additional information in the second copy, roughly doubling length without adding value for an agent that can read either language.

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?

This is a six-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what the summary contains or how it is shaped. It lists metric names but not their structure, grouping semantics, or the export side effect, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations and no return schema.

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 period, export, format, group_by, stale_days and include_stale are already documented in the schema. The description repeats only the period enum values and adds no interpretation of what group_by=intent vs arm means or when to set include_stale. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 resource (memory usage stats) and enumerates the four metric families computed (reach, adoption, prohibition follow-through, proposal pass rate) alongside the period granularity. That is clearly more than a name restatement. It does not, however, position itself against the obvious sibling rsi_memory_health, which likely also reports memory statistics.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is for aggregate reporting rather than record-level work. The presence of rsi_memory_health among the siblings makes the missing differentiation a real ambiguity, since both plausibly answer 'how healthy is my memory'.

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