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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics and health metrics, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose potential performance implications of including index details, whether the operation is expensive, or what specific metrics are returned. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple stats tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on what distinguishes it from the 'health' sibling.

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 stats tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, the overlap with the sibling 'health' tool creates ambiguity about which tool to use for what purpose, and the description doesn't clarify what specific health metrics are included or how they differ from the health tool's output.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the tool aggregates database statistics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get database statistics and health metrics' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (database statistics/health metrics), which is sufficient to distinguish it from most sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'health' tool, which likely overlaps in scope.

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 this is for retrieving database-level statistics and health metrics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling 'health' tool or other diagnostic tools. The parameter descriptions add some context (e.g., namespace filtering, index details), but the main description lacks clear usage boundaries.

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