get_launches_statistics

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

The description matches the annotations: 'get' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It adds some context by clarifying launches are test runs and that results contain aggregated statistics, but it does not disclose what those statistics are, pagination behavior, or how the aggregation is computed. Still, the annotation safety profile lowers the bar, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear sentence with no filler, caveats, or redundancy. The core verb, resource, clause, and qualifier 'aggregated statistics' are front-loaded and readable at a glance.

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 there is no output schema, the description is somewhat vague about what 'aggregated statistics' means and what the response contain. It is sufficient to call the tool because the schema covers all inputs, but an agent would still need to guess the exact return shape and whether statistics include counts, rates, durations, or something else.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains all seven parameters including lookback period, tags, limit, offset, search, statuses, and projectId. The description only adds the high-level 'aggregated statistics' intent and does not need to repeat parameter details; this matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a clear action ('Get a list') on a specific resource ('launches (test runs)') and adds the scope 'for a project' plus 'aggregated statistics'. This is enough to separate the tool from execution/case/folder management tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'get_launches_trends'.

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 'for a project' phrase implies the tool needs a projectId and is appropriate when launch-level aggregate stats are requested. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like 'get_launches_trends' or 'get_launch_tests', leaving the alternative-selection decision mostly to the agent.

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