inscada_logged_stats

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

The description adds value by mentioning the statistics and grouping options, but it does not elaborate on behavioral aspects like time zone handling, empty results, or the structure of the response. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant or verbose language. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description could have clarified the return format (e.g., dictionary per variable) or mentioned any limitations. It covers the main features but leaves some gaps for the agent.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explicitly listing the statistics types (min, max, avg, sum, count, first, last) that are not in the schema. This helps the agent understand what the tool computes.

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 'Get variable statistics (min, max, avg, sum, count, first, last) over a time range', specifying the verb, resource, and the exact statistics provided. It also distinguishes from siblings like inscada_logged_values by focusing on aggregated stats.

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?

While the description implicitly indicates that this tool is for aggregated statistics over time, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like inscada_logged_values or inscada_get_live_values. The presence of sibling tools suggests distinct use cases, but no direct comparison is provided.

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