log_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on a local log and caps the 'top' parameter at 200. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action 'Scan a local CAN log.' Every phrase is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter stats tool with an output schema available, the description adequately covers what the tool computes and a key constraint (top cap). It doesn't need to describe return values since an output schema exists. It could add usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it is contextually complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It clarifies that log_path refers to a local CAN log and that 'top' is capped at 200, implying it controls the number of top IDs returned. It does not explicitly explain the default value (20) or the exact format of log_path, but it provides meaningful context beyond the 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 a specific action ('Scan a local CAN log') and lists concrete outputs (counts, span, top IDs, median per-ID cycle times). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_log or signal_timeseries, which serve different purposes.

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 use case (computing aggregate statistics on a CAN log) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like probe_log or list_messages. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is 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.