llmtrim_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full weight. It describes the tool as reporting data (implied read-only), but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or rate limits. The term 'report' suggests non-destructiveness, but more clarity would be beneficial.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Report recent savings') and then details. No extraneous text.

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 description is adequate for a simple stats tool with no parameters or output schema, but lacks details on what 'recent' means (time range), whether the data is cumulative or reset, or if prior use of sibling tools is required. More context on return format would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and baseline 4 is appropriate as it lacks any specific parameter information that would be irrelevant.

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 reports recent savings (tokens trimmed, dollars saved, per-model breakdown) from the local ledger. It distinguishes from sibling tools (llmtrim_compress, llmtrim_compress_text) which perform compression actions, not reporting.

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 identifies the tool as a report of recent savings and compares to a known command-line dashboard. It implies use for reviewing compression results, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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