analysis_get_statistics

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that results vary by tap type (table/tree/graph) and that selector shorthands are accepted, which are concrete behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not cover edge cases like invalid taps, but the addition is meaningful.

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 incredibly tight: three sentences cover what it does, what it returns, how to find taps, and a syntax note. Each sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description under-specifies the operational context. With 8 parameters and no schema parameter descriptions, users cannot determine how tap_token, selector, display_filter, or analysis_session_id interact. The description is too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'selector shorthands' and hints at tap discovery, leaving seven of eight parameters (kind, name, limit, protocols, tap_token, display_filter, analysis_session_id) unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('sharkd tap for statistical analysis'), and mentions output types (table/tree/graph). It also references analysis_catalog for discovering taps, grounding its role. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling analysis tools like analysis_summary or analysis_iograph.

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 gives a contextual clue by telling users to 'Use analysis_catalog to discover available taps' and notes the accepted selector shorthands. This implies a workflow but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only partially provided.

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