trigger_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not state this explicitly, nor does it mention authorization, side effects, or any performance characteristics. Minimal 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?

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loading the verb and resource, followed by specific details in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose, no fluff.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions three key metric categories. An output schema exists, so the return format is covered, but the description could list additional fields for completeness.

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 the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (active runs, rate limiting, failures). Without parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the empty 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trigger service stats'), with concrete metrics in parentheses ('active runs, rate limiting, failures'). This distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like 'ticket_stats' or 'infra_stats' which specialize in different domains.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling stats tools). The description implies usage when trigger service metrics are needed, but lacks when-not conditions or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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