get_recovery_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns aggregate statistics with no side effects, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm that it is safe, idempotent, or requires no special permissions. Adding a note about being non-destructive would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first defines the core purpose, the second adds relevant detail about what is returned. No unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (success rates, failure distribution, active session counts). It is slightly vague on the time range ('historical') but sufficient for a statistics endpoint.

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 input schema covers 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical recovery success rates and failure distribution'. It distinguishes from sibling recovery tools like 'get_recovery_plan' and 'get_recovery_session_status' by focusing on aggregate statistics.

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 usage for retrieving recovery statistics but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this instead of 'get_recovery_session_status' or 'recovery_history'.

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