get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior itself. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description lists the three categories of data returned. It does not mention side effects or costs, but for a zero-argument read-only stats tool this is a minor omission rather than a serious gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and then names the three output categories efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does, and with zero parameters and an implied read-only operation, there is little else an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is nothing to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names a concrete resource bundle: system statistics, knowledge graph counts, and active hardware acceleration tier. This gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool returns and implicitly differentiates it from the sibling memory and graph tools, which are about storage and relationships rather than system metrics.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the tool's name and description: call it when you need system or knowledge-graph statistics. However, it doesn't say when not to use it or what other tools might be preferable for similar information.

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