get_shot_statistics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, but does not disclose any behavioral nuances like time ranges, data source, or whether counts are limited to current profiles. The description is acceptable but shallow.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists all key outputs. No redundant words or filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context by naming the three aggregate statistics. It is sufficient for basic use, though it could clarify whether the statistics are global or scoped to a particular profile set.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of what would otherwise be needed. The description adds meaning by listing exactly which statistics the tool returns, which serves as implicit output semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'aggregate statistics', and lists specific outputs (total shots, shots per profile, profile version counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shot_history which fetch individual records.

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 implies use for aggregate statistics, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_history or get_shot_data_for_analysis. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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