arango_get_tool_usage_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output contents (use counts, timestamps) but fails to mention any potential side effects, performance implications, or access requirements. Given the lack of annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add context. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 is simple with no parameters. The description states what it does and gives examples of returned data (use counts, timestamps). However, without an output schema, the exact structure is unclear. The description partially compensates but is not fully detailed.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info beyond the schema, which is acceptable as no parameters exist.

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 'Get usage statistics for all tools, including use counts and last used timestamps.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (usage statistics), and the scope (all tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arango_list_collections or arango_query.

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 indicates the tool's utility for 'understanding tool usage patterns,' providing clear context for when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, as there are no directly competing sibling tools.

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