Get Training Data Statistics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description ('Get statistics') is consistent but adds no new behavioral information beyond what the annotations convey. It does not disclose any limitations, side effects, or dependencies.

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 sentence that is direct and waste-free. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While it could be expanded with a bit more context on output, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should inform the agent about what kind of statistics are returned (e.g., number of lines, words, distributions). The description is too vague on the return value's structure and content. This gap may cause the agent to misinterpret the tool's output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (type and id) described. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Since the schema already provides the necessary semantics, a baseline score of 3 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about the training data for a model'. It differentiates from siblings like transkribus_model_get_train_data (which retrieves the data itself) and transkribus_model_get_validation_data_stats (which deals with validation data). However, it could be more specific about the type of statistics (e.g., counts, distributions).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like transkribus_model_get_train_data or transkribus_model_get_validation_data_stats exist, but the description does not clarify when to choose this one. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about appropriate usage.

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