get-context-stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the name's functionality without indicating that it is read-only, safe, or any side effects. No additional context beyond the tool name is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While it could be more detailed, it is appropriately concise for such a tool.

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 description lacks information about the return value (e.g., format, typical fields) despite no output schema. Given the tool returns statistics, the agent is left guessing what the response contains. Siblings like 'get-console-logs' likely provide structure, making this gap significant.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'contextId' with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without improvement.

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 verb 'Gets' and the resource 'usage statistics for browsers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list-browsers' and 'get-context-info'. However, it lacks specificity on what 'usage statistics' entails (e.g., memory, CPU, activity).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a browser ID from 'list-browsers', nor exclusions like using 'get-context-info' for detailed state.

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