tdarr_stats_get_pies

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get stats) but does not mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or what happens on invalid libraryId.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It conveys the core function efficiently but omits important details, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the returned 'pie stats' contain or their format. For a tool with one parameter, more context on return values is needed.

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 covers 100% of parameters (one optional libraryId with description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a well-documented 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 'Get all or library pie stats' specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'pie stats', and distinguishes between two scopes (all vs. library-filtered). However, 'pie stats' is ambiguous and lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like 'tdarr_stats_get_res_hist'.

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 alternative stats tools (e.g., tdarr_stats_get_res_hist, tdarr_stats_get_space_saved). There is no discussion of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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