zone_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 states the tool retrieves statistics but does not specify what types of statistics (e.g., counts, metrics), whether it's read-only, if it requires permissions, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of statistical tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'zone' parameter clearly documented as 'Zone name (omit for default zone)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter information.

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 the action ('Get statistics') and target ('for entities and relationships in a zone'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'inspect_knowledge_graph' or 'get_recent', which might also provide statistical or summary information, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to siblings like 'inspect_knowledge_graph' or 'list_zones', leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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