site_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 usefully discloses the returned metrics and that the scope is one site, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any cost/rate-limit behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a compact colon list; every element names a return metric or scope and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter stats tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, which is helpful. However, it leaves the site_id source/format unexplained and, with no annotations, does not cover read-only behavior or access requirements.

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?

There is a single required site_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'one site' without explaining the ID format, source (e.g., list_sites), or validation. It adds almost no parameter-level meaning 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?

Names the resource (graph health for one site) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: doc/edge counts, edge types, verdict, top hubs. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_page, neighbors, search, and list_sites, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Implies the tool is for inspecting graph health metrics of a single site, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as neighbors or search for related queries. An agent must infer the selection context.

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