Workflow statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only telemetry' aligns with but does not significantly extend the safety profile. It adds context that data is computed from the journal and lock, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential performance cost or historical scope. Given annotations cover the core, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single, dense sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and enumerates metric sections without fluff. The closing comparison to 'status' is efficiently placed. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It lists the metric sections, giving an agent a clear idea of the expected fields. It does not describe the exact structure or format, but for a read-only telemetry tool with no inputs, this is reasonably complete. A dedicated output schema could compensate, but its absence makes the description sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. Per rubric, a 0-param tool warrants a baseline of 4. The description's mention of metric sections indirectly hints at what the output contains, which helps parameter-less usage.

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 computes read-only telemetry metrics and enumerates the specific metric sections (record/mutation counts, cycle time, DoR first-pass rate, bets, discovery, undo, surprise). It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'status' which summarizes current state, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without ambiguity.

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 provides a clear alternative by noting 'status summarises current state instead,' implying stats is for telemetry metrics rather than state. This is a useful when-not signal, though it does not elaborate on specific conditions for choosing stats over other siblings (e.g., list, show). Still, it gives actionable guidance.

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