cleanuparr_get_stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds a minor behavioral note about the v1 endpoint being deprecated/unexposed, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. The extra note about v1 is a useful, non-redundant addition. There is no verbosity or irrelevant content.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks context about what the aggregate statistics represent. Given the many sibling tools that deal with different types of stats (e.g., CF stats, manual event stats), the description should clarify what this tool returns and when it is relevant. The absence of parameter semantics further reduces completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of 'hours' or 'include_dry_run'. The parameter names are somewhat guessable, but the description does not clarify their meaning, range, or effect. Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, this is a significant gap for a tool with two 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'v2 aggregate statistics' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cleanuparr_get_stats_timeline by emphasizing 'aggregate', and the note about the deprecated v1 endpoint adds scoping clarity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another stats-related tool (e.g., get_stats_timeline, get_cf_stats) would be more appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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