sys_app_statistic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key safety trait 'read-only', which is useful. However, it does not mention what data is returned, whether any counters are reset, or any other side effects, so the behavioral transparency is only partial.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted text. The read-only qualifier is placed in parentheses and the core phrase is immediately understandable. It could be more descriptive, but as a concise fragment it is efficient.

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, read-only tool, the description still fails to explain what the 'application statistics' actually contain. There is no output schema and no mention of the kind of data returned. An agent would need to call the tool or inspect runtime results to understand it, which is a clear gap.

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. Schema coverage is trivially 100% since there are no properties to document. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name: 'Application statistics (read-only)'. It does not include a verb or action that tells the agent what operation will be performed. Among siblings like show_statistic and sys_app_bandwidth, there is no differentiating detail about what these statistics cover.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling statistics tools. The read-only hint implies a safe query, but there is no context about what condition would select sys_app_statistic over show_statistic or appqos_view. This leaves the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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