get_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 disclosing behavior. It does list the output contents, which gives some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any prerequisites or side effects. This leaves the safety profile ambiguous, though the 'Get' verb implies a safe read.

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 core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the included metrics. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the purpose and details the return content, leaving no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not harm that.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Frigate system statistics'), and enumerates the exact data returned (CPU/memory, detector speed, camera FPS, per-process consumption). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on events, recordings, or configuration.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'get_stats_history' for historical stats. The description simply states what it does without any context on use cases or exclusions, providing no comparative usage guidance.

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