get_recovery_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description does add useful scope detail that all recovery attempts are aggregated and that live active session counts are included, which is slightly non-obvious for a 'historical' tool, but it says nothing about timeframe, retention, or how totals are computed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, though the second sentence partly restates the first by repeating 'success rates' alongside the failure distribution. Nothing is buried or padded.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description carries only the burden of explaining what comes back, which it does by listing success rates per strategy, failure type distribution, and active session counts. The main remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on scope or relation to sibling recovery tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated output categories give the agent a clear sense of what the parameterless call yields.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource (get historical recovery success rates and failure distribution) and enumerates the aggregates returned, so the purpose is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_recovery_strategy_stats, which appears to cover overlapping 'success rates per strategy' data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like get_recovery_strategy_stats, get_recovery_session_status, or record_recovery_outcome. The agent must infer that this is the aggregate-overview call rather than a per-session or per-strategy lookup.

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