Get Usage Stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as read-only ('provides visibility'), and details the output structure. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, which would strengthen transparency.

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 concise, with two focused sentences. The first sentence immediately states the return value and its composition, while the second adds context. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (session counts, storage, recent sessions) and dimensions (surface, project, tag). It could be improved by specifying how metrics are grouped or that data is aggregated. But for a simple stats tool, it is fairly complete.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns without needing to detail parameters. Baseline score of 4 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 returns a usage dashboard with specific metrics: session counts by surface/project/tag, storage metrics, and recent sessions. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_session and get_recent_sessions by focusing on aggregate statistics.

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 implies the tool is for gaining visibility into memory usage, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_recent_sessions or get_server_info. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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