Статистика вызовов

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: secrets are masked in returned call data, and availability rules (ALWAYS_ON in caps profiles, overridable by CAMOUFOX_TOOLS_ONLY / CAMOUFOX_TOOL_HIDE). This is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the WHEN/WHAT/NOT labels and no filler. The profile-visibility clause is somewhat dense but conveys a real constraint rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, masking, and availability. The only gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter, which leaves the agent guessing at how much data is returned.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single `limit` parameter (default 20) is completely unexplained in the description. Since coverage is below 50%, the description is expected to compensate, but it says nothing about what limit controls (recent calls shown?) or its bounds.

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?

States a specific resource (per-tool call statistics) with concrete contents: call counter, average time, errors, and recent calls. The НЕ block explicitly distinguishes it from two named alternatives (tool_usage.json and ping), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Uses an explicit WHEN/WHAT/NOT structure. 'КОГДА' names the use case (auditing which tools work and what fails, client debugging), and 'НЕ' names the alternatives for the adjacent questions (usage metrics via tool_usage.json, server health via ping). Nothing is left to inference.

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