rag_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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call. That said, a parameterless "Get statistics" tool has minimal behavioral surface, and the enumerated return fields (source count, chunk count, embedding model) add useful disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the payload second, with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key metrics (source count, chunk count, embedding model), which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool. Only the when-to-use context against rag_health/rag_sources is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no redundant parameter discussion.

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 states a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("statistics about the Open5e RAG index") and enumerates the returned metrics, which clearly separates it from rag_search or rag_chat. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings rag_health and rag_sources, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over rag_health or rag_sources, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word "statistics".

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