get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregated counts by source, severity, and MITRE coverage, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the result is a single summary object, how the stats are scoped in time, or any freshness/availability behavior.

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. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool returns, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the return dimensions. It could have added a note distinguishing it from sibling statistics/coverage tools, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is 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 names a specific verb and resource: getting statistics about indexed detections, and specifies the main output dimensions (counts by source, severity, MITRE coverage). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named sibling tools like get_mitre_attack_stats or get_coverage_summary.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as search_detections, list_by_mitre, list_by_severity, or get_coverage_summary. The description implies it is an aggregate statistics endpoint, but it does not state conditions or alternatives.

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