atr_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description does add one useful non-obvious fact — that the figures are scoped to the current session rather than lifetime totals — but it says nothing about units, aggregation window, or whether the value resets.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the session scoping is stated immediately. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, with undefined jargon (ATR) consuming part of an already tiny budget.

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 no-param, read-only counter this is close to sufficient, especially since annotations carry the safety profile. However, no output schema exists and the description doesn't indicate the shape of the result (a single number, a breakdown by tool, units), leaving the agent guessing about the return value.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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 names the reported resource (tokens saved) and the scope (this session), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never explains what "ATR" is, so an agent must infer that this is a session-metrics reporting tool. It also does nothing to separate it from siblings such as atr_query or atr_run, which could plausibly return stats too.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. The only hint is the phrase "in this session", which implies scope but not a selection rule.

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