feedback_stats

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

The description discloses an administrative access requirement, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially fulfills it.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and access restriction.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema (which describes return values), the description is fairly complete. However, it could elaborate on what 'aggregate feedback statistics' entails, but that is partially covered by the output schema.

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 are no parameters in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 tool returns aggregate feedback statistics, with an access restriction (admin only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_feedback by implying it provides summary data rather than individual items. However, it could be more specific about what statistics are included.

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 mentions 'admin only', which implies usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_feedback. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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