get_receiver_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic read action.

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 no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key actions, but it remains clear and concise.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify what the 'statistics and performance metrics' include (e.g., CPU load, uptime, message counts), leaving the agent without sufficient detail to understand the full scope of the tool's output.

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% for the single parameter (format) which is already fully described by its enum and default. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get readsb receiver statistics and performance metrics' clearly states the tool's function, using specific verbs and resources (receiver stats, performance metrics) that distinguish it from sibling tools focused on aircraft data like get_aircraft_data or search_aircraft.

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. No explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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