get_telemetry_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the access requirement (API key scoped or verified claim) and implicitly signals a read-only operation via 'Get'. It does not describe error behavior, but for a stats-retrieval tool, the main behavioral concern (authorization) is addressed.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data categories, and the second adds necessary access context. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers what the tool returns (a list of statistics) and the access requirement. With no output schema, it does not enumerate the exact response fields beyond the categories, but for a read-only telemetry tool this is sufficiently complete. The period parameter's default is covered by the schema, not the description.

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% and both parameters (slug and period) have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without elevating it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('aggregated telemetry statistics for a plugin'), and enumerates the exact statistics provided (active installs, version distribution, WP/PHP breakdown, locale spread, error rates, daily trend). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_plugin or check_plugin, which focus on security audits rather than usage metrics.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever aggregated telemetry data for a plugin is needed. It also states a prerequisite (API key scoped to the plugin or verified claim). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are unrelated to telemetry.

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