Get Umami Stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is read-only. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, error handling) beyond stating the action, which is consistent with the annotation.

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 consists of two short sentences that front-load the main purpose and list return values. Every word is necessary and informative, with no redundancy or extraneous details.

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 no output schema, so the description's list of return metrics provides essential context. Combined with the rich input schema descriptions and readOnlyHint, it is largely complete. Minor gap: no indication of the response structure or aggregation details, but it suffices for agent invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., examples for dates, explanations for websiteId). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics; its mention of returned metrics pertains to output, not input parameters. Baseline 3 applies per guidelines.

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 'Get summarized Umami stats' and specifies the resource 'a website and time range', along with listing the returned metrics (pageviews, visitors, visits, bounces, totaltime, comparison data). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like umami_get_pageviews or umami_get_breakdown.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining aggregate stats over a period, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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