nodes_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what statistics can be retrieved, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the statistics are returned in. The description provides basic functional information but lacks critical operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. The Chinese text is concise and each sentence serves a clear purpose, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.

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 statistics retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't describe the return format, potential data volume, error conditions, or how this tool relates to similar statistical tools in the sibling list. The parameter coverage is strong, but overall context is incomplete.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: node_id (optional node identifier), metric (specific statistical categories with enumerated values), and index_metric (index-specific statistics with enumerated values). The examples further clarify how parameters interact, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose as '获取节点统计信息' (Get node statistics), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'nodes_info' or 'index_stats', which appear to provide related but different statistical information about nodes or indices.

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 usage examples that imply when to use different parameter combinations, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'nodes_info' or 'cluster_stats'. The examples show different calling patterns but lack explicit guidance about tool selection criteria.

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