get_article_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid article ID), or whether the tool is idempotent. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words. While it is concise, it could be improved by front-loading the key verb and resource. However, it remains clear and to the point.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other tools like 'list_articles'. The agent lacks enough information to use it confidently.

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. It adds no meaning to the 'article_id' parameter beyond the schema's name and type. It does not explain what the ID represents (e.g., internal DEV.to ID, URL slug), how to obtain it, or constraints (e.g., integer range).

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 the tool retrieves reactions, comments, and page views for a DEV.to article. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('article stats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_repo_stats' which apply to repositories. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., 'for a given article ID') explicitly, but the parameter list implies it.

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. For example, it does not mention that 'list_articles' is for fetching all articles, or that this tool is for detailed stats on a single article. There are no when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites specified.

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