system_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what statistics are returned, what time window or scope applies, or whether the result is cached/expensive. "Get" is at least consistent with the annotation, so no contradiction.

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 text is short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. Two words with no front-loaded scope or structure convey essentially nothing.

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?

No output schema, no annotations covering scope, and one undocumented parameter. For a stats tool whose whole value depends on knowing what is measured and over what range, the definition is completely inadequate.

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?

There is one parameter (tz) with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. Since 0 params is not the case, the description cannot claim the baseline 4, and it gives the agent no idea what tz controls (input timezone vs. output timezone) or its expected format.

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?

"Get Stats" is essentially a restatement of the tool name system_stats; it names no specific resource, metric domain, or scope. It also does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like system_stats_recap, system_stats_digest, system_http_stats, and system_bandwidth_stats.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to any alternative. With five-plus sibling stats tools in the namespace, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the agent guessing which stats endpoint to call.

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