ls_sink_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that the tool returns aggregated counts and timestamps but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data scope or guarantees).

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?

A single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function with front-loaded key information. No wasted words.

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, the description provides sufficient information about the return values. However, it lacks details on data scope (e.g., all-time vs windowed) which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description is essential to convey the output meaning, listing three specific fields. It effectively compensates for 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's purpose with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'sink totals', listing the fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like ls_sink_events_list (lists individual events) and ls_sink_event_mark_processed (mutates state).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only describes what it does; an agent would need to infer usage context (e.g., for overall health check vs detailed event inspection).

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