cooltest_get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for conveying behavioral aspects. 'Suite status statistics' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what happens if the suite does not exist. It does usefully disclose the categories of data returned, adding some transparency beyond the name.

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 two short sentences that front-load the resource and data metrics, followed by a clear usage phrase. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the core purpose, the returned metric categories, and a typical usage scenario. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the list of metrics implies the structure sufficiently for this level of complexity.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'suite' including its default behavior, and the description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly identifies the resource ('suite status statistics') and specifies the exact metrics returned (total/passed/failed/review/pending), making its function clear. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_case or list_cases, which focus on individual test cases or listings rather than aggregate status.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to report progress after testing' which indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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