feedback_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a stats tool, it likely reads data, but this is not stated. The description lacks transparency beyond its 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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key information: the specific counters and their utility. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple stats tool. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., a single object or array) and any behavior notes. Some gaps remain, but the core purpose is clear.

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 no parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds meaning by listing the types of counts returned (total, by_status, etc.), which effectively describes the output. This goes beyond the empty schema.

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 aggregated counters on feedback, listing specific breakdowns (total, by_status, etc.) and its utility for understanding community activity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_feedback (individual items) and submit_feedback.

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 indicates the tool is useful for understanding community activity and identifying hot categories, which implies usage for aggregate analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_feedback.

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