session_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses the types of statistics computed, implying a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, output format, or whether an archive must already be opened. It provides some behavioral context beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.

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 with a clear first sentence and a compact args block. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the primary purpose. Minor structure improvement possible, but no waste.

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 stats tool with no output schema, the description lists key outputs but omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must be opened via open_archive) and return format details. It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves context gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description compensates with an Args section explaining saz_path as 'Path to the .saz file.' This adds necessary meaning but is minimal—does not specify path format, whether it accepts URLs, or file requirements. Adequate for a single parameter.

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 'Aggregate statistics' with specific breakdowns (method/status/host distribution, traffic volume, duration percentiles, error samples), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sessions or get_session. It specifies the input (.saz file) and the analytical nature.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for summary overview vs. slow_requests for latency analysis, or list_sessions for raw sessions. No exclusions or conditions.

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