get_system_stats_by_location

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic retrieval operation. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, what happens when no workers match, whether a list or aggregate is returned, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a significant gap given the absence of structured 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the result ('Returns system stats'), and contains no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has two required string parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'system stats' includes, whether results are per-worker or aggregated, or how location filtering works in practice. Even with sibling names, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional assumptions.

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 provides only types and required flags (0% description coverage). The description adds that 'floor' and 'section' are filter criteria, giving them semantic context. However, it does not specify allowed values, format, or how the filters combine, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource 'system stats of workers' with a location filter ('by floor and section'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_workers_system_stats or get_worker_system_stats, which have broader or per-worker scopes.

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 implies usage for retrieving stats from workers located on a specific floor/section, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or directly compare to sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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