get_log_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. While 'aggregate stats' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify logs, nor does it mention any permissions, error behavior, or performance characteristics beyond 'cheap'. Given the sibling tools include destructive actions, this omission is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Cheap aggregate stats') and lists the key stat categories. No unnecessary words 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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and what to expect. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the returned stats, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide to use it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by mentioning 'a ticket's ingested logs', which clarifies that ticket_id refers to a ticket that has logs. However, it does not describe the format or additional constraints beyond the schema's basic type. It provides minimal added meaning.

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 identifies the tool as providing aggregate stats for a ticket's ingested logs, specifying the types of stats (levels, errors, time span). It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_logs (raw logs) and ingest_ticket_logs (adding logs) by focusing on aggregate summaries rather than raw data.

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 by saying 'cheap aggregate stats' which suggests it is a lightweight alternative to querying full logs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context but no exclusions.

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