get_audit_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical describes the result as event counts, but the description does not explicitly state that the audit log is unchanged, nor does it mention response format, limits, or scoping 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?

One tight sentence with the core action first and a parenthetical adding the key output detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it and understand it returns aggregated counts by type/status. It does not specify time range, whether counts are global, or an output schema, but the tool is simple enough that those gaps are minor.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Get audit log statistics', and the parenthetical 'event counts by type/status' clarifies the output. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_audit_log, but the statistics framing makes the distinction mostly clear.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_audit_log, clear_audit_log, or any other sibling. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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