Get usage stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the categories of statistics (usage, success/failure, performance) but says nothing about filtering, time scoping, or refresh behavior, so it clears the lower annotation-adjusted bar only marginally.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 two-parameter, undocumented-schema tool with no output schema, the description leaves both parameters unexplained and gives no usage context. An agent could call it, but cannot know what deviceId/deviceName select or whether results are scoped.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both deviceId and deviceName, and the description does not mention them at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. The agent cannot tell whether these params scope the stats or are required.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus a concrete resource (Raccoon tool usage, success/failure and performance statistics), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar diagnostics siblings such as build_cache_stats or resource_governor_status.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool, what triggers it, or which sibling to prefer for related telemetry. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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