get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get aggregate stats', but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format details. The behavioral description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and a usage example. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. This is concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the return type ('single totals') and provides example metrics. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that the result is a single object (not time series) and mentioning the relationship to sibling tools.

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 100%, with all four parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., listing example metrics). It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context that would help the agent construct correct arguments.

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 explicitly states that the tool retrieves aggregate stats (single totals) for a site over a period, listing example metrics like visitors, pageviews, etc. It also provides a concrete use case ('how did we do yesterday?'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_timeseries or get_breakdown, though the phrase 'single totals' hints at the distinction.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use for overview/summary questions like how did we do yesterday?'. This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., get_timeseries for trends).

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