get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface a genuinely important trait: rankings come from a bounded recent sample rather than the full history, and the response reports that bound. It does not, however, clarify read-only status, permissions, or any rate/scope constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core behavior and appending the sampling caveat where it matters most. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description has to convey return content, and it does list the aggregates produced plus the sampling caveat. It stops short of enumerating exact response fields or ordering, leaving a small gap for a tool with no structured output contract.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'days' and 'directory' fully; baseline is 3. The phrase 'most frequent commands and directories' loosely echoes the directory filter but adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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 (aggregate counts over recorded commands) and enumerates what is produced: totals, success fraction, and top commands/directories. That is clearly distinguishable from listing siblings like recent_commands or search_commands, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer from 'aggregate counts' alone that this is the summarization path rather than one of the many listing/search siblings.

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