tracearr_get_media_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the time windows (all_time, last_30, last_7) and the combined/per-server breakdown structure, which goes beyond the annotation and explains what kind of data to expect.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key metrics, then windows, breakdown, and parameter semantics. Every part adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, readOnly annotation, and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and data shape. There are no missing critical details like auth or side effects, and the parameter semantics are addressed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'ref' as 'a canonical media uuid or a provider ref', which is critical semantic information not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand what value to pass, though it could further clarify the format or provenance of provider refs.

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 tool returns play counts, watch time, and distinct viewers for a media item, with time windows and combined/per-server breakdowns. This specifies the resource (media item) and the exact metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tracearr_get_media_history or tracearr_get_user_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 description implies the tool is used when you need viewing statistics for a media item, and the 'for a media item' phrase gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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