stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about what is returned and explicitly notes that secrets are masked, which is useful operational context. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is clearly a read-only statistics/audit tool.

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 a compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's category and then lists concrete outputs. There is no filler, and every phrase adds useful information.

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?

With one optional parameter, a low schema coverage, and no parameter description, the tool description plus schema is only minimally viable. The presence of an output schema compensates for not describing return values, but the unresolved meaning of 'limit' keeps the description from being fully complete.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name and default suggest it controls the number of returned entries, but it is unclear whether it limits recent calls, error entries, or aggregates, so essential semantic information is missing.

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 specifies exactly what the tool reports: per-tool call counts, average duration, errors, and recent audit entries, with secrets masked. This clearly distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, which are navigation, browsing, search, and extraction tools.

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 label 'Наблюдаемость' and contents make the intended use unmistakable: diagnostics, audit, and observability. There are no competing sibling tools offering the same capability, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary, but it does not state exactly when to prefer this tool over other diagnostic signals.

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