get_stats_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the return format (JSON with specific fields) and time range ('last 7 days'), which helps the agent understand what data to expect. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects - important gaps for a tool that accesses usage data.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return format specification in just four lines. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameter, and the third details the return structure. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which presumably documents the JSON structure), the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and returns. The description explains the parameter meaning and outlines the return data structure, which complements what the output schema likely provides. For a single-parameter read operation with output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context.

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 0% schema description coverage (the schema only shows 'top_n' is an integer with default 10), the description adds significant value by explaining what 'top_n' means ('How many top items to show per category') and providing the default value. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information about the single parameter.

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 the tool's purpose with 'Get command usage statistics' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('command usage statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_history_tool' (which presumably retrieves command history rather than aggregated statistics) and 'search_commands_tool' (which likely searches individual commands). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_history_tool' or 'search_commands_tool'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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