get_eval_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds value by stating that no API key is required and that it returns read-only statistics, implying no side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state it is a read-only operation or mention rate limits/pagination.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a brief paragraph and a 'Returns:' label, making it easy to parse without fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists all expected output fields, and notes authentication requirements. No further context is needed.

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 schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline 4 applies because there's nothing to explain.

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's function: returning aggregated statistics on all registered evaluations. It lists the specific metrics (total, successes, success rate, average score), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that generate tasks or run a judge.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for retrieving overall evaluation stats, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention alternative tools for specific cases. The context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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