Get a programme’s report statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond this by disclosing the AI triage prerequisite and clarifying that resolution time is based on FIXED or CLOSED statuses, which the schema does not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then lists the specific metrics, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, prerequisite, and the exact set of statistics, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 only parameter, programId, is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating the programme must belong to an organization the signed-in user belongs to, implying a validity constraint on programId that is not present in the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Report statistics'), a specific resource ('one programme'), and enumerates the exact statistics returned: total reports, counts by status and severity, and average time to resolution. It also adds a scope constraint ('of an organization the signed-in user belongs to') that distinguishes it from the sibling get_org_report_stats (org-level stats).

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 implicitly defines usage by specifying 'one programme' and adds a prerequisite ('organization must have enabled AI triage access'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference about when to choose this over get_org_report_stats.

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