pmg_statistics_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly marks the tool as READ-ONLY, states the return type (list of dicts), and the data scope (last `hours`). While it doesn't detail authentication or rate limits, the behavior for a statistics retrieval tool is well communicated.

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?

Three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose and read-only nature, the second adds constraints and config needs, the third describes output and sibling alternative. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (2 simple parameters), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. The output is described as a list of dicts, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the return format. Could mention exact fields, but not essential.

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 already covers both parameters (hours, proximo_target) with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explicitly stating the hours range (1-24) and the config prerequisite (PROXIMO_PMG_*), enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves recent PMG mail statistics with a 1-24 hour window, and distinguishes itself from the sibling pmg_statistics_mail (full aggregate totals). The verb 'get' and specific resource 'PMG recent mail statistics' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs to use pmg_statistics_mail for full daily totals, and notes the config requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_*). This provides clear context on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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