tapatalk_get_board_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description simply says 'Get', adding no extra behavioral context. There is no mention of data freshness, time range, or whether 'online visitors' is a current count, which could matter for interpretation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get board-wide statistics') followed by a clear list of contents. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple stats tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the key returned metrics. It lacks some nuance (e.g., whether stats are for all time or a range), but overall it's complete enough for an API with 0 complexity.

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 input schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. This matches the 0-parameter baseline of 4.

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's purpose: 'Get board-wide statistics' and enumerates specific metrics (total threads, posts, members, online visitors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tapatalk_get_online_users or tapatalk_get_config by focusing on aggregate board-level data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether to use this for online counts instead of tapatalk_get_online_users, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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