feedback_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states 'see your feedback stats,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. The lack of additional behavioral context leaves the agent with minimal guidance beyond the purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the specific metrics it returns. However, it could be more complete by specifying scope (e.g., timeframe, user-specific) or return format, but it is largely sufficient.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, '0 params = baseline 4.' The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides feedback stats including total events, pinned results, and dismissed results. The verb 'see' and the specific metrics make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling action tools like feedback_pin and feedback_dismiss.

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 implies usage when feedback stats are needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like query_documents, so it falls short of a 5.

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