summary_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what return values look like ('JSON ze statystykami') and lists the computed metrics. However, it doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors like handling invalid timestamps, missing values, empty datasets, or whether the computation is exact for large files or approximate.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidance, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. No wasteful filler.

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 an output schema so return value structure is covered elsewhere. The description covers input formats, both optional parameters and their defaults, the purpose, and when to use it. For a relatively simple summarization tool with 3 params and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though it could note behavior on edge cases (empty data, non-numeric values).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains all three parameters: data accepts CSV or JSON format, ts_field defaults to 'timestamp' for the time column, and value_field defaults to 'value'. However, it doesn't detail the CSV structure beyond 'with header' or provide example formats, leaving some ambiguity for the data parameter.

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 verb+resource: 'Zwraca statystyki podsumowujące dla szeregu czasowego z czujnika' (returns summary statistics for a time series from a sensor). It explicitly distinguishes itself from manual computation and lists what statistics are returned (count, min, max, mean, median, stddev, time range, duration).

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool instead of manually computing statistics on raw data ('Użyj tego narzędzia zamiast samodzielnego liczenia statystyk'). It gives clear context but doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools like detect_anomalies or detect_threshold_breaches, which are related but distinct (those detect patterns, this summarizes).

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