Get Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context about what the statistics concern (conversation history and search capabilities) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance implications or return format details, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be more informative while still remaining concise, but the current structure is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema and safety annotations, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description is vague about what statistics are returned, how to control the response format, and when to use this tool over siblings. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 schema has one required nested parameter 'params' with an optional response_format enum, but the description provides zero parameter semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent to infer how to use the parameter.

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 states it 'gets statistics' about conversation history and search capabilities, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like cowork_history_list or cowork_history_get, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that it's for aggregate statistics rather than raw data, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusion scenarios.

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