filoo_link_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned metrics (clicks, visitors, bot count, etc.) and mentions QR-code sources. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but for a read-only analytics tool, the transparency is good.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage examples. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the returned metrics and provides usage context. It is sufficient for a simple analytics tool, though could mention data freshness or ownership requirements.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'code' described as 'Link code in the form 'username:slug'.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets click/scan analytics for one filoo short link, listing specific metrics (total clicks, unique visitors, bot count, top countries, top traffic sources with QR-code sources). It distinguishes from sibling tools like filoo_get_link (likely returns link metadata) and filoo_list_links (lists all links).

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 clear context and example use cases ('how is my campaign link doing?' or compare performance across links). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like filoo_get_link for non-analytics details.

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