get_agent_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return value characteristics by listing specific metrics (connections, emails sent, open rates), which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it lacks safety information (idempotency, error handling) that annotations would typically provide.

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, efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded. The parenthetical examples add value without verbosity. No wasted words or redundant phrases.

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 the low complexity (1 simple parameter, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing example return values. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though error handling details would add value.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single agentId parameter, the schema sufficiently documents the input. The description implies the 'specific agent' requirement but does not add semantic details beyond the schema's 'The agent ID' description, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the verb (Get), resource (performance statistics), and provides concrete examples of returned metrics (connections, emails sent, open rates). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_activity or get_dashboard.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity or list_agents. There are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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