stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description adds value by explaining the specific statistics returned, including self-healing events, which implies the tool reports on automated recovery actions. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and outputs, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (specific stats) and when to use it. Could mention if a session must be active, but the guidance 'after a working session' implies it works post-session, so adequate.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'Correctover session statistics', listing the included metrics. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat, health, providers, and validation_history by focusing on aggregate session-level statistics.

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 explicitly states to use the tool 'after a working session to review reliability metrics and see how many self-healing events occurred', providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like the health tool.

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