panelica_python_apps_get_v1_python_apps_id_stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the required scope apps:read, which is useful auth context, but otherwise mostly repeats the read-only nature already captured by annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The HTTP method, category, required scope, and read-only status are each on their own line, making it scannable. Minor redundancy exists because 'Read-only.' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and the endpoint largely repeats the tool name.

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 GET operation, the description is nearly complete: it gives the path, category, required scope, and read-only nature. It does not state what metrics or fields the stats response contains, but since no output schema exists this is a minor gap for an otherwise low-complexity read tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single id parameter, the schema already documents 'Path parameter: id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as what the id represents or how it should be formatted, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 app stats' identifies the operation with a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint /v1/python/apps/:id/stats plus Category: Python Apps disambiguate it from stats tools for other resources. It stops short of fully describing what kind of stats are returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 category and endpoint imply this tool is for retrieving stats about a specific Python app, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools like get_v1_python_apps_id_logs or stats endpoints for other resources. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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