get_statistics_by_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what statistics are retrieved without behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function and key examples, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves statistical data. It adequately states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is insufficient for full agent understanding without additional structured data.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (type, group, limit). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'top boxes by blocked flows or security alarms', which aligns with the 'type' enum but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. 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 action ('Get statistics') and resource ('for each Firewalla box'), with specific examples of statistics types ('top boxes by blocked flows or security alarms'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_simple_statistics' by specifying box-level focus, though not explicitly from 'get_statistics_by_region' which has a different grouping dimension.

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 implies usage for retrieving box-level statistics, particularly top performers in blocked flows or security alarms. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_simple_statistics' or 'get_statistics_by_region', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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