get-context-stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state it explicitly, doesn't explain what 'usage statistics' contains, and gives no details about return format, side effects, or implications of omitting contextId. The parameter description partially covers the default-all behavior, but the tool description itself reveals almost nothing.

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 sentence with no filler, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise but slightly under-specified; nonetheless, structure is not the issue.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a loosely defined 'usage statistics' term, the description is incomplete for an agent to know what response to expect or when this tool is the right choice. The optional parameter behavior is in the schema, but the core meaning of the returned stats is missing, making the overall definition insufficient for confident invocation.

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% and the sole parameter, contextId, is well-described in the schema as optional with a clear default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but none is needed since the schema already explains the semantics. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('usage statistics for browsers'), which conveys a read operation on browser usage data. However, 'usage statistics' is vague—it doesn't specify whether these are CPU/memory metrics, session counts, or something else—so it leaves room for interpretation. It is still distinguishable from siblings like get-context-info and get-console-logs, but not precisely.

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 such as get-context-info or get-console-logs. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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