beacon_network_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (read-only) but does not explicitly state immutability, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic output summary.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence clearly stating the action and object, and the second listing the output details. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema is available, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and return values. It covers total agents, active count, provider breakdown, and protocol health status, which is complete for a stat retrieval tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which complements the empty input schema and output schema.

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 'Get Beacon network statistics' and enumerates the specific data returned (total agents, active count, provider breakdown, protocol health status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like beacon_agent_status (individual agent status) by focusing on aggregate network 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as beacon_agent_status or beacon_heartbeat. The description does not include any context about prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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