get_directory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it explicitly states GET /json/stats, signaling a read-only operation, and lists the kinds of data returned. However, it does not disclose auth needs, response shape, or rate limits, and the trailing 'etc.' leaves behavior underspecified.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and endpoint before giving concrete examples. The 'etc.' is a minor vague addition, but overall the definition is concise and well ordered.

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 simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, so the description covers the basic resource and a few return categories. Still, usage context and the full scope of the statistics are left to 'etc.', making it adequate but not complete.

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 only parameter, timeout, has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions timeout. The schema's title and default are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 the resource ('Directory server statistics') and the endpoint, plus concrete result categories like station counts, checks, and clicks. It is clear about what the tool exposes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list_directory_servers beyond the 'stats' wording.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_directory_servers or the various station statistics tools. There are no use cases, exclusions, or decision rules stated.

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