quipu_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by clarifying the data source is the serving store rather than a client-local database, but it says nothing about cost, freshness, or what the statistics actually contain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core verb+resource statement is front-loaded. The scope caveat is worth keeping but is phrased as a negative ('not a client-local database'), which is slightly less efficient than stating the source positively.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing what comes back, and 'graph and transaction statistics' is only a high-level gesture at the payload. For a zero-argument read tool this is enough to call safely, but an agent cannot anticipate shape or granularity of the returned numbers.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is argument-free, which the schema already establishes. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource ('Read server graph and transaction statistics') and adds a scoping clarifier that this covers the serving store rather than a client-local database. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like quipu_health, quipu_transactions, or quipu_graph, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence signals this is the tool for server-side operational numbers as opposed to local state, which nudges selection. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer quipu_health or quipu_transactions instead, and no stated prerequisites.

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