system_stats_recap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureUTE, but it only states the action. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what the response shape is, or whether there are performance implications (like aggregating across the whole system). Being a 'recap' suggests an aggregate/overview, but that is not spelled out as behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, which earns it a passing score for conciseness. However, it is too under-specified to be considered 'appropriately sized': it saves all space by not communicating the tool's scope, output, or differentiation from siblings. A few more words would make it far more useful.

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, no annotations, and no parameter documentation to fill in gaps, but it sits in a large family of similar system_* tools. The description alone is not enough for an agent to know what 'recap' means, what data it returns, or how it compares to system_stats_digest and system_stats. Given the cluster of alternatives, this is a clear completeness gap.

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 zero parameters)Skip, and schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. No additional semantic burden falls on the description.

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 'Get system statistics recap' states a specific verb and resource, so it's minimally clear. However, 'recap' is vague and does not distinguish it from the several sibling tools like system_stats, system_stats_digest, system_bandwidth_stats, system_nodes_metrics, system_nodes_statistics, and system_health. An agent would not know what this tool returns or how it differs from those siblings without opening them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusionshare, and it does not point to any sibling tool as an alternative. The name 'recap' implies a summary, but there is no explicit rule about when to choose it over system_stats_digest or system_stats.

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