get_tool_affordance_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists output fields but omits whether the tool is read-only, what constitutes a 'rolling' window, how failures are defined, or if caching occurs. The version string 'v2.1.0' is non-informative. The safety and side-effect profile are unclear.

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 very short (one sentence plus version), which is concise, but the version prefix adds noise. While brief, it covers the core purpose and output fields, but lacks critical details needed for correct invocation.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description partially covers the return value but leaves gaps in usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. It does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 0%, so the description must document the parameter. It only implies 'toolName' is the tool identifier, without specifying format, case-sensitivity, or validation rules. The single parameter is underspecified.

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 returns 'flat rolling stats for a tool' and lists specific metrics: success_rate, total_calls, common_failure_modes, avg_duration_ms. This makes the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like list_tool_affordances (listing affordances) and other stats tools. However, the term 'rolling stats' is slightly jargon-heavy and lacks explanation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., tool must have been observed) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Siblings like list_tool_affordances or record_tool_outcome serve different purposes but are not contrasted.

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