pihole_get_stats

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 data is returned, not behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation. While 'Get' implies reading, explicit confirmation would help agents understand safety and constraints.

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?

Single sentence efficiently lists all key statistics without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, every element (queries, blocked queries, percentage, clients, domains) earns its place by specifying the data 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?

For a read-only statistics tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error conditions, or whether the visualization option changes output type, leaving some gaps for agent invocation.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'visualize' boolean. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with only one optional parameter and high schema coverage, baseline 3 applies. The description's enumeration of statistics provides context for what 'visualize' might affect, justifying a slightly higher score.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'Pi-hole statistics', then enumerates the exact data points returned (total queries, blocked queries, blocking percentage, active clients, domains being blocked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on blacklist/whitelist management, blocking status, or query logs.

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 statistical overviews rather than detailed logs or management actions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like pihole_get_query_log or pihole_get_top_blocked. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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