coro_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about safety, permissions, side effects, return format, or operational limits. 'Alias of ccg_stats' is a pointer with zero behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the alias relationship is front-loaded. There is no wasted text or buried detail.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description could be complete with very little. However, it only references ccg_stats and provides no self-contained purpose or behavior. An agent must consult another tool's definition to use this one meaningfully.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and no additional parameter meaning is needed. Baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description only states that the tool is an alias, without naming the verb or resource it operates on. It does point to the sibling ccg_stats, which lets an agent infer equivalence, but the actual purpose (what stats are computed) is left entirely to the sibling. This is more than a tautology but still vague on its own.

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 guidance on when to call coro_stats versus ccg_stats or any other sibling. The word 'alias' implies interchangeability, but the description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent gets no routing help beyond the bare equivalence.

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