skill_stats

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

With no annotations, the description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the read intent implied by 'get'. It does not disclose whether statistics are aggregated, which skills are covered, or any access requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording, earning full marks for brevity.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate at a high level, but without an output schema, it leaves unclear the shape or content of the returned statistics. It could mention whether results are counts, durations, or per-skill breakdowns.

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?

Since the tool takes zero parameters, the empty schema fully covers parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses the verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'skill usage statistics', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_usage_start/end and skill_list. However, it lacks specificity about what metrics are included, keeping it from a perfect 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?

No usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only states the action without telling the agent when to choose this over similar tools like failure_stats or skill_usage_start.

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