usage_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a side effect: dashboard=true writes an HTML report and returns its path, which is behavior beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, cost, whether reads are non-destructive, or the shape of the returned counters.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core output is front-loaded followed by the conditional behavior. Slightly under-specified, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-parameter stats tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe the returned counters/token format, so an agent knows roughly what to expect but not the response 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that dashboard=true not only writes the file but also returns its path, which the schema's terse 'Also write .codegraph/dashboard.html' does not mention.

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 states the resource (usage counters and estimated tokens saved), which is distinct from the code-graph siblings, but it lacks a clear action verb and never explicitly frames this as a stats/reporting tool. An agent can infer the purpose but must do some work.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The only condition given is the dashboard=true flag behavior, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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