get_event_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies read-only behavior through 'get' and 'checks', and outlines the analysis performed (coverage, completeness, flags, health). However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or describe the output format, missing some behavioral details.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters well but omits the output structure or return value. Given no output schema, mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., a health status or stats object) would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate for basic use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: pixel_id as a numeric string and archetype with allowed values and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title, enabling correct use.

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 retrieves event statistics with archetype-aware diagnostic analysis, specifying checks on event coverage, parameter completeness, and diagnostic flags. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pixel_events or diagnose_pixel_on_site by focusing on aggregated analysis and classification.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_pixel_events for raw events or run_tracking_diagnostic for broader diagnostics. The usage context is implied but not spelled out, leaving room for confusion among the many sibling tools.

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