get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the dependency on a RuneLite HTTP Server plugin and implies reliability, but it fails to state that this is a read-only operation, potential failure modes (e.g., plugin not running), or any side effects. The agent lacks information about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the tool's purpose, method, and a reliability comparison. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant information, making it efficient for agent parsing.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format (e.g., structure of skill levels and XP) and prerequisites for the tool to work. While it adequately states what the tool does, it leaves the agent needing to infer or assume the output shape and error conditions.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying that the tool retrieves 'all skill levels and XP', which clarifies what data is returned and the method used (HTTP plugin). No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 'Get', the resource 'all skill levels and XP', and the method 'via RuneLite HTTP Server plugin'. It also hints at a specific endpoint '/stats' and differentiates from vision-based methods with the reliability claim, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among siblings like 'read_stats'.

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 gives a general usage hint ('More reliable than vision') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_stats' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisite mentions are provided, only an implied preference over vision-based methods.

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