ps_symbol_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns aggregated data, or what format the statistics come in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool does but lacks crucial context about what statistics are returned, their format, or behavioral constraints. For a statistical tool with no structured output documentation, more detail would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 'Get statistics about the symbol registry' clearly states the action (get) and resource (symbol registry statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like ps_symbol_get (retrieves specific symbols) and ps_symbol_list (lists symbols), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from ps_hold_stats (statistics about holds) or other stats tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ps_symbol_get, ps_symbol_list, and ps_hold_stats, there's no indication of when statistical information about the symbol registry is needed versus other symbol operations or statistical tools.

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