get_reply_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and operational context. It mentions 'scraped replies,' implying a read-only operation on stored data, and lists return values. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, requires prior scraping, or has no side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the output fields. No wasted words or redundant information, maintaining excellent structure for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the key return stats. However, it leaves minor context gaps, such as the prerequisite of prior scraping or the exact data scope, which could be clarified to make it fully self-contained.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. As per the rubric, the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail since none exist.

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 states precisely what the tool does: 'Get statistics about the scraped replies.' It then enumerates the specific stats returned (reply count, unique users, most active commenters, time range), making it clear and distinct from sibling tools that scrape threads, fetch all replies, or search replies.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates it operates on 'scraped replies,' suggesting it is meant for post-scrape analysis, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like get_all_replies or search_replies. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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