technitium_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Dashboard numbers' implies a read-only aggregation, and the note that server 'all' works is a useful operational detail, but there is no explicit statement of read-only status, return format, or pagination for a tool that produces 'top charts'.

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?

Extremely terse and front-loaded, with the resource described in the first clause and parameter guidance following. The telegraphic 'period:'/'server:' style is efficient, though slightly clipped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool, documenting both parameters plus the described output categories is nearly sufficient; only explicit usage routing is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters, enumerating the five period values and clarifying that server accepts 'all' when multiple servers exist. Only minor gaps remain, such as the LastDay default being left to the schema.

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 names the resource (DNS stats) and enumerates the concrete outputs: queries, blocked, cached, top charts. This clearly separates it from siblings like technitium_blocking or technitium_flush_cache, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

It lists the valid period values and explains the server parameter, which guides invocation. However, it never says when to reach for this tool over technitium_zones, technitium_resolve, or other siblings, so the usage context is only implied.

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