get_cloud_diagrams_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying the data returned (node change counts, diagram import/sync state) and the requirement for start/end dates. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with usage context and output description. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy. It efficiently communicates purpose, output, and requirements.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: what stats are returned (node changes grouped by service, diagram states) and use cases (auditing, drift detection). It could mention limits like maximum time range, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (coverage 100%). The description emphasizes that both are required and in RFC3339 format, which reinforces the schema but doesn't add substantial new meaning. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 specifies the tool returns activity statistics for cloud infrastructure diagrams over a time period, including node change counts grouped by cloud service and diagram import/sync state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregated stats over time, not individual diagram details.

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 starts with 'Use this when the user wants activity statistics...' providing explicit usage context. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool vs. others like get_cloud_diagram_components or get_cloud_diagram_cost_snapshot.

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