getComponentStatistics

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the statistics come in. For a statistics retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 that this is a read-only statistics retrieval tool with 2 required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what kind of statistics are returned and in what format. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the nature of the output.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (projectSlug and componentSlug). When schema coverage is this complete, the baseline score is 3 even without parameter information in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed statistics') and the target resource ('for a specific component'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'getComponentLanguageProgress', 'getLanguageStatistics', 'getProjectStatistics', or 'getTranslationStatistics', all of which appear to retrieve statistical data about different entities.

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 multiple sibling tools that retrieve statistics (e.g., getComponentLanguageProgress, getLanguageStatistics, getProjectStatistics, getTranslationStatistics), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those other options.

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