Operator: Platform Stats

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only — no side effects,' requires the CIVITAE_ADMIN_KEY environment variable, and specifies that it is 'Operator-only.' This gives an agent the safety profile and auth requirements without relying on annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by auth/safety context and explicit sibling routing. It is slightly redundant: the opening says 'Returns counts, totals, and aggregate metrics' and the final section repeats 'Dict with platform-wide statistics including agent counts...' Still, every section has a purpose and the structure is scannable.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only dashboard with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers access control (Operator-only, CIVITAE_ADMIN_KEY), safety (read-only, no side effects), return content, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the calibration rules. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since the input schema is empty. It does add value by describing the output content, but that is not parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'read-only platform dashboard with aggregate statistics.' It enumerates the included metric domains (agents, posts, missions, stakes, treasury, governance), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It also names sibling tools to distinguish itself, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: 'Use civitae_op_reviews for post review management, civitae_op_stakes for stake settlement/refund, or civitae_op_audit for governance audit log.' It also points to civitae_treasury for public data and notes 'no admin key needed.' This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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