get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates statistics and supports breakdowns, which suggests a read-only analytical operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or requires no modifications, nor does it mention authorization needs or side effects. The behavior is adequately described for a simple analysis 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 consists of two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence earns its place. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 tool that takes audit results and returns statistics, the description covers the input and the breakdown options. It does not have an output schema, so the description would ideally specify the format of the statistics (e.g., counts, percentages). However, given the simplicity and the context of sibling tools, it is reasonably complete. The missing output format details slightly reduce the score.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by listing the breakdown dimensions ('category, impact, wcag, rule') which match the enum values, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'generate', the resource 'statistics from audit results', and specifics about breakdowns by category, impact, WCAG level, or rule ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_accessibility_score' or 'generate_summary_report' by focusing on detailed statistics with multiple breakdown dimensions.

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 notes it supports single or multiple audit results, implying usage after an audit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregate_audit_results' or 'generate_dashboard', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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