apm_stanum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden, and the parenthetical '(read-only)' does add a useful explicit signal that calling this tool has no side effects. However, it does not describe what value is returned, how the result is formatted, or whether any APM feature needs to be enabled first. The read-only disclosure is helpful but leaves meaningful behavioral details to inference.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It loses one point because it is a sentence fragment that omits the operation verb, but for a parameterless read-only accessor the brevity is still appropriate.

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-argument, read-only tool the description is nearly enough to invoke correctly, but the lack of an output schema and lack of an explicit statement about what is returned creates ambiguity around 'station number' (e.g., a count vs. an identifier). It also gives no contextual connection to the APM sibling tools, so an agent has to guess when this tool is the right one.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no information is missing in this dimension.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'AP station number,' and marks it as read-only, so the general intent is understandable. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with an action verb, leaving the agent to infer that the tool retrieves or reports this value. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like apm_show or apm_query.

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 about when this tool should be used instead of related APM tools such as apm_show, apm_query, apm_enable, or apm_disable. No preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned. The description provides zero usage context beyond the vague read-only label.

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