Get Rapid7 Statistics

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: it returns row counts plus distributions, omits tables not yet loaded, and returns formatted JSON keyed by table name. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape. A small redundancy exists between 'Returns row counts...' and the later 'Returns: Summary statistics as formatted JSON...' line, but the latter adds keying detail so the duplication is minor.

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 no-argument read-only tool with annotations and an output schema available, the description is complete: it identifies the covered tables, the omission behavior for unloaded tables, and the return format. No critical call-time information is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the baseline for zero-parameter tools. The description's statement of what the stats cover is the only relevant semantic context and it is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get summary statistics for all database tables') and then enumerates the exact outputs ('row counts and relevant distributions') and the tables involved (assets, vulnerabilities, policies, vulnerability_remediation). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like query_rapid7 or get_rapid7_schema, which are for detailed queries or schema inspection.

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 gives an explicit use context: 'Useful for getting an overview of the data across all loaded datasets.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule, but the intended scenario is clear.

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