get-combat-stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states 'Read-only scan', says reverted applications are subtracted, and notes unlinked monsters aggregate by archetype. It also explains the includeLedger output behavior. It does not cover permissions or data-source prerequisites, but the core side-effect and data-processing traits are disclosed.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral notes, then usage. The long list of analytics categories is verbose but informative; no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating report sections and the optional ledger payload. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only analytics tool, though it doesn't describe the exact JSON shape or empty-result behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping sections/actor/combat/since as filters and explaining includeLedger:true appends folded JSON for charts, going beyond the schema's bare field descriptions.

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 names a specific operation (fold stat-stamped chat messages into per-combat analytics) and enumerates the exact analytics categories, making the resource and output clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, though its read-only/GM-facing framing distinguishes it from chat-log and combat-tracker utilities.

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?

It gives call-time filtering guidance (sections/actor/combat/since) and identifies the audience as GM-facing, which implies when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list-chat-messages/export-chat-log or when not to use it.

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