pmg_statistics_recent

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it's a read operation and mentions the live-verified path. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, error conditions, or behavior if hours is out of range. Still, it is transparent enough for a simple read tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key constraint. Every sentence adds unique information, no wasted words.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, parameter range, and prerequisites. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It could mention that it returns statistics data, but that is implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read tool.

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 50%, but the description adds value for the 'hours' parameter by specifying the valid range (1-24). The 'proximo_target' parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description thus improves parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('PMG recent mail statistics'), and the read-only nature. It also specifies the hours window (1-24), differentiating it from other PMG statistics tools like pmg_statistics_domains or pmg_statistics_mail.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') and includes a verification path, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling statistics tools. There is no 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives.

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