server_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only restates the purpose and offers no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. The word 'detailed' suggests depth but does not disclose what that entails.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without superfluous wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description meets the minimum bar. However, it lacks context on what specific statistics are included, how 'performance metrics' differ from health checks, or what the response structure looks like, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 schema already provides complete documentation for the single parameter 'include_performance' with its default value. The description mentions 'performance metrics' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline 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 states the verb 'get' and the resource 'server statistics and performance metrics', making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'server_health', which likely covers health status, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_health' or 'get_autodream_metrics'. The description implies it is for detailed stats but does not state exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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