get_smart_follow_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: the window is fixed at 30 days (not caller-configurable) and the review-effective rate only counts decisions that have an effective/ineffective conclusion. It never explicitly states this is a read-only, side-effect-free query, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource and metric list, then adds example phrasings and the one meaningful caveat; nothing is padded. The example-question block is slightly verbose but earns its place as routing signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and a zero-parameter read tool has little additional risk to disclose. The fixed 30-day window and metric definition are covered, leaving little an agent would still need to know before calling.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description's 'no parameters' note is consistent with the empty schema but adds nothing beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (view smart-follow decision statistics) plus the exact metric set (total suggestions, adoption rate, rejection rate, review-effective rate, per-action breakdown) and the 30-day scope. This clearly separates it from analysis/results siblings like run_smart_follow_analysis and get_smart_follow_results, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 example user questions ("what's my adoption rate", "how did smart-follow perform last month", "which actions get the most suggestions") give concrete routing signals for when to select this tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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