cleanuparr_get_manual_event_stats

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as grouping behavior or response format. The output schema likely covers the structure, so the description does not need to over-specify, but it adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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 filler. It conveys the essential information efficiently without 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's simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description is sufficient. It specifies the key output dimensions (severity and resolution), and the output schema can provide the exact response shape. It does not mention any alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 schema provides full coverage by definition. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing further to elaborate. The description adds meaning by indicating the aggregation dimensions (severity and resolution), which indirectly clarifies what the no-parameter output reflects.

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 action: 'Get manual-event counts by severity and resolution.' It specifies the resource (manual-event counts) and the grouping dimensions (severity and resolution), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_manual_events (which lists events) and get_manual_event (which retrieves a single event).

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 for retrieving aggregated statistics rather than detailed event lists, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The sibling list_manual_events serves a different purpose, but no explicit comparison is given.

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