listDevicesStats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only describes input capabilities (pagination, filtering). It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects, rate limits, or response structure beyond inferred 'statistics'.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first establishes core action and pagination, second lists supported filters. No redundant words, well front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is too brief. It omits what the returned 'statistics' include, pagination metadata, and any constraints like date ranges or data freshness, leaving important gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is low (22%), but the description adds context for fuzzy search and filtering by tag or device series type, covering the main search parameters. However, it omits details on parameter formats (e.g., comma-separated vs single value) and does not address customHeaders, leaving gaps for 9 parameters.

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?

Description clearly identifies tool as querying statistics for global adopted devices with pagination and filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like listDevices and searchDevices by focusing on 'statistics', though the exact nature of statistics (e.g., aggregated counts) is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listDevices, searchDevices, or getDevice. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when not to use it.

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