Get Library Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that statistics are for a specific library, but it does not disclose what statistics are included or how they are computed; the output schema presumably covers return shape.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action and object directly. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description provides adequate context for selection and invocation. It is missing only minor guidance about what 'detailed statistics' contains or how it relates to sibling library tools, but this is not critical.

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%, and the library_name parameter already includes a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond rephrasing that the library is specific, so it does not improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('detailed statistics for a specific knowledge library'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_knowledge_libraries by emphasizing a single specific library, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 purpose implies this tool should be used when detailed statistics for one particular library are needed, rather than listing all libraries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as list_knowledge_libraries or verify_library_integrity.

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