get_email_graph_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety properties, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too brief to offer meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. While it could be expanded with more detail without losing conciseness, it efficiently delivers the essential message.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the statistics returned (e.g., which metrics are included like opens, clicks) and how this tool differs from similar ones like get_email_stats. The current description is too minimal to be considered complete for a stats-related tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so each parameter (emailId, isVariant, dateFrom, dateTo) is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, thus earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action 'Get email graph statistics' and the resource 'email graph statistics' with a date range. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_email_stats or get_campaign_graph_stats, which may also provide email-related statistics. The inclusion of '(Mautic 7)' adds version context but not purpose differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_email_stats or get_campaign_graph_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, contraindications, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without clear direction for selection.

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