thruk_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects, or any latency/rate-limit considerations. The term 'statistics' implies aggregation but no specifics.

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 only 4 words, which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks structure and does not front-load key information; every sentence should earn its place, but here there is not even a full sentence.

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 complexity of the filter parameter (nested JSON with group/leaf nodes) and the lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'statistics' include (e.g., counts, percentages, time ranges) or how results are structured.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('filter' and 'backends'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains filter structure and backends. 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 'Aggregated host/service statistics' is a phrase that loosely restates the tool name ('stats'). It lacks a verb and does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., counts, averages, distributions). Compared to siblings like thruk_totals or thruk_host_availability, it fails to distinguish itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thruk_totals or thruk_problem_counts. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or excluded scenarios.

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