Get guard stats

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add operational context. It usefully discloses the key scoping fact that counters are "since process start" (i.e., reset on restart), but says nothing about the response shape or whether values are cumulative counts, which matters for a metrics tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is inspected, followed by the practical use case. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 parameterless read, the description covers what is measured and the reset window, which is the essential part. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what the returned object looks like (counter names, nesting, totals), leaving a real gap for an agent trying to consume the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a parameterless stats read.

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?

States a specific verb ("Inspect") and a specific resource ("security-guard rejection counters") and even names the concrete counter types (PathGuardError, SsrfBlockedError). It does not need to differentiate from siblings, since none of the listed tools are analogous, but it also doesn't explicitly frame itself against anything else.

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?

Gives two concrete use contexts: dashboards and "is anything probing me?" checks. That is clear positive guidance, though there are no stated exclusions or pointers to an alternative tool when a deeper security audit is needed.

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