feedback_stats

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint: true` already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'and recommendations', implying some analysis, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, aggregation). It does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise at 5 words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief expansion to clarify scope without becoming verbose.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what 'stats' or 'recommendations' entail, leaving ambiguity about the tool's output.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. There is no need for parameter details in the description. The description adds value by summarizing the output type (stats and recommendations).

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 action ('get') and the resource ('feedback stats and recommendations'). It is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'feedback_summary' or 'capture_feedback', which may have similar purposes.

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. The description lacks context for when to retrieve stats vs. using other feedback-related tools.

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