get_kb_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is aggregate and global in scope, which strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or return characteristics, but the 'aggregate statistics' wording provides reasonable transparency for this simple read-only 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 single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Aggregate statistics') and then lists the concrete dimensions. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter statistics tool, the description is largely complete: it states the scope and enumerates the returned aggregates. Without an output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape, but the listed breakdowns give enough context for an agent to invoke it and interpret results.

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 effectively 100%, so there is no hidden input surface. The description reinforces the absence of filters by saying 'across the whole KB,' which confirms the agent does not need to supply or worry about parameters.

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 names the operation (aggregate statistics), the resource (across the whole KB), and the specific breakdowns (verdict, defect type, component, product, average resolution time). This distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools, which target individual stored analyses rather than KB-wide stats.

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 phrase 'across the whole KB' implies this is for global, cross-record statistics rather than per-analysis retrieval, so the usage context is inferable. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_analysis or list_analyses, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing.

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