Claude Agents Power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address key behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the statistics are returned in, if there are rate limits, or how the data is aggregated. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses potentially sensitive usage data.

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 extremely concise - a single clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 statistics retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'download statistics' includes (e.g., counts, trends, time periods), how results are ordered, or what format the data is returned in. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output structure.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Get download statistics') and target resource ('for agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get-agent-details' or 'list-agents' that might also provide agent-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-agent-details' or 'list-agents'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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