kms_get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the categories of data returned (counts, processing status, performance metrics), which implies a read-only reporting operation. It stops short of stating cost, permissions, freshness, or whether the call is expensive, so it only partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler sentences and the resource named early. 'Comprehensive analytics and statistics' is mildly redundant padding but not wasteful enough to hurt clarity.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately previews return content (document counts, status, performance metrics). Adding the effect of includeProcessingDetails would make it airtight, but nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter (includeProcessingDetails) is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics and statistics about the KMS system') and enumerates the content returned: document counts, processing status, performance metrics. It is clearly not a search/chat tool, so it separates from the kms_search/kms_chat siblings by implication, though it never names them explicitly.

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 call this versus kms_list_documents or kms_get_document for counts/status, and no prerequisites or conditions stated. The agent must infer that 'stats' means aggregate reporting rather than document retrieval.

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