read_stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the operation (read), the scope (single stat), and the exact contents of the response (latest value, recent series, count/min/max/avg/sum). It does not delve into error conditions or explicit read-only guarantees, but the term 'read' and the output summary provide sufficient transparency for a non-destructive tool.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose and output. The second sentence adds usage guidance without redundant details. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity, complete schema descriptions, and the description's explicit enumeration of return values, the information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema is present, but the description covers what the tool returns, so no gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the 'single stat' concept that maps to the 'name' parameter. Since the schema already documents all parameters well, no additional compensation is needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a single stat'), and enumerates the delivered output ('latest value, recent series, and basic summary (count/min/max/avg/sum)'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting that 'ask_ezstat' is for free-form questions over many stats, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for a structured read of one metric' and contrasts it with an alternative: 'prefer ask_ezstat for free-form questions over many stats.' This provides clear guidance and differentiates from siblings.

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