flightlog_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states that the tool 'shows' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or whether it triggers any computation. For a stats tool, this is a minor gap.

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 a single sentence with a list, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability, but it is not verbose.

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 no output schema, the description lists the metrics returned, which is helpful. However, it lacks details like format, units, or any constraints (e.g., time range). For a stats tool with no annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by detailing what the tool returns (sessions, messages, etc.), providing context beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 verb 'show' and the resource 'past conversations indexed', listing specific metrics like sessions, messages, content blocks, database size, compression ratio, and per-project breakdowns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as flightlog_delete_sessions or flightlog_get_session, which have different purposes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for obtaining statistics, but does not indicate exclusions or provide context like 'use this for overviews, not for detailed session data'. Given the sibling set, the description could be improved with such advice.

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