get_token_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that SESSION_ID can be empty to return global totals, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions needed.

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 with two sentences: the first declares the purpose, the second lists parameters. No extraneous information — every word contributes valuable context for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. It aligns with the sibling context (chat, review tools) and provides enough detail for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 50% (only SESSION_ID has a description). The description adds meaning to both parameters: 'cd' is explained as '工作目录' (working directory), and for SESSION_ID, it adds that empty string or omission returns global total across sessions. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: '查询 Coding Bridge MCP 的 token 用量统计' (query token usage statistics). It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat, review_code, and review_plan.

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 vs alternatives. It only lists required and optional parameters without any context about appropriate use cases or scenarios to avoid.

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