statistica_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the operation (a read-only diagnostic reporting three specific values) and the failure-troubleshooting scenario, so an agent understands it is a safe health check. It does not mention timeout behavior or what happens if STATISTICA is absent, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 reported and followed by the trigger for use. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description must convey the return values, which it does (availability, version, path), plus when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, which maps to the baseline of 4. There is nothing to document, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 ('Report') and precisely names the resources returned: COM availability, version, and executable path. This clearly distinguishes it from the statistica_* analysis and data-manipulation siblings, which perform statistics rather than diagnostics.

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 explicit context for use: 'Run this first if STATISTICA operations fail,' which is a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools (e.g., statistica_open) or stating when NOT to use it, but the guidance is actionable.

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