cuemap_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Read' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether any side effects occur, whether authentication is required, what statistics are returned, or whether global stats differ behaviorally from project stats.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It presents the core action first and then defines the scope alternatives.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description conveys the purpose adequately, but with no output schema it should give at least a hint of what statistics are returned. The absence of any return-value information leaves the agent guessing about the tool's output structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'global' and 'project' clearly. The description adds little beyond restating the project/global scope, so it does not meaningfully elevate the parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 ('Read') and resource ('CueMap statistics'), and it specifies the two scopes: repository-scoped project or global engine. It is distinct enough from siblings like cuemap_status or cuemap_projects, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 when to use the tool: whenever CueMap statistics are needed, with an option to request global rather than project stats. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for related needs.

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