get-runbook-statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It does not mention read-only semantics, the nature of the statistics (e.g., counts, averages), potential costs, or any other behavior beyond the literal action.

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 a single, clearly structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes meaning, though it is somewhat minimal.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what constitutes 'statistics', whether these differ from executions, or how to use the returned data, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 input schema includes one parameter, runbook_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter, nor does it add any context about its format, source, or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('execution statistics') and scope ('for a runbook'), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get-runbook-executions, which might also return execution data, though 'statistics' implies aggregated metrics.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-runbook-executions or get-runbook-execution. There are no examples, exclusions, or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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