muse_session_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'provides analytics' but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a stats tool, it is likely safe, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context, earning a 2.

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 one sentence plus a parenthetical list of actions. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly enumerates the available actions. Excellent conciseness.

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 9 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what each action provides (e.g., 'language breakdown'), but it does not describe the return format or structure of the analytics. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps on output expectations, earning a 3.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'action' parameter's enum values (e.g., 'overview' as summary stats, 'languages' as language breakdown). This clarifies what each action returns beyond the schema's simple 'Type of statistics to retrieve'. The extra context justifies a 4.

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 tool provides analytics and insights about coding sessions and lists specific actions like overview, languages, timeline, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as muse_session_history (which likely returns raw session data) and muse_analyze_code (code analysis). The verb 'provides' and resource 'analytics and insights' are specific and informative.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like muse_session_history or muse_analyze_code. However, the listed actions (overview, languages, timeline, etc.) imply different use cases, so an agent can infer context. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, which limits the score to 3.

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