review_stats

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by listing output components. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any side effects, performance implications, or permissions required.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key purpose ('Coverage stats') and efficiently lists the metrics provided.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the returned data. However, it could benefit from briefly noting the format (e.g., numbers or tables) or any default behavior like time scope.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, baseline is 4 since no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which compensates for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides coverage statistics including total patterns, reviewed percentage, per-suite and per-confidence breakdowns, and load-time validation issue counts. It uses specific verbs and resources, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual items or searches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the description implies usage for aggregate statistics, it does not provide when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternative tools for specific needs like filtering or searching.

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