get-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get database statistics' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the statistics are returned in, if there are rate limits, or if it affects system performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Get database statistics'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and target.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely provides structured data (statistics), more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially with many sibling tools that might offer similar information.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is acceptable. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 database statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('database statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific statistics are retrieved, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get-system-info' or 'get-index-metrics' that might also provide statistical data. This prevents a higher score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-system-info', 'get-index-metrics', and 'get-health-status' that might overlap in providing statistical or system information, the agent has no indication of which tool is appropriate for which scenario. This lack of differentiation results in a low score.

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