get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'return statistics,' which fails to disclose crucial behavioral traits like the time window covered (e.g., last 7 days, all-time), aggregation level, or if certain critical metrics are excluded.

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?

It is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and action. It is appropriately sized and contains no fluff.

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 that this is a statistics-gathering tool, the description must define its scope. Since it offers no time constraints or metrics breakdown, it remains minimally viable but lacks the necessary completeness for an AI to confidently choose it over similar reporting functions.

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 tool has zero parameters, meaning the input schema requires no description. As such, the description cannot add semantic meaning beyond what is in the structured data. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 identifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('vault statistics and workflow run analytics'). While specific, it is a bit generic compared to listing specific run metrics, giving it a solid 'clear' rating without being overly precise.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other available statistical or listing tools (e.g., list_workflow_runs). There are no 'when-not' scenarios or usage context provided.

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