get_monthly_running_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions that stats are 'based on recent activities,' which hints at computation from activity data, but it does not explain how activities are aggregated, what 'calendar-ish' means, or whether historical data is required. No side effects or data dependencies are described, leaving significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It leads with the core purpose ('Monthly running stats') and conveys the essential time scope, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to confidently use the tool. It does not clarify the semantics of 'calendar-ish' or 'recent activities,' and with no annotations, the agent cannot assess safety or prerequisites. The sparse description leaves notable gaps in usage and behavioral understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'months' parameter, so the description must compensate. It uses 'N' in the text, which likely corresponds to the months parameter, but it does not explicitly confirm this mapping or explain the default value. The agent cannot be certain how to set this parameter correctly.

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 that the tool provides monthly running statistics over a recent time range, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_running_summary or get_recent_activities. However, 'calendar-ish months' is vague and the specific metrics included are not mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_running_summary or get_recent_activities. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context, so the agent receives no direction for tool selection.

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