Get Automation Statistics

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent; the description confirms 'Read-only' and adds behavioral details about breakdowns and required parameters. No contradictions.

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?

Five sentences front-loaded with purpose, structured with bullet-like lists for breakdowns. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's essential quirks (breakdown types, scope, optional filters). Could mention response structure, but not critical for a statistics tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context, such as requiring one of boardId/accountWide, clarifying the runStatus dependence on breakdown, and explaining excludeAutomationIds usage.

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 it aggregates automation run statistics, with a specific verb ('aggregate') and resource ('automation run statistics'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_automation_runs' and 'manage_automations' by focusing on statistics and breakdowns.

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 clear context on when to use each breakdown type and scope (board vs. account-wide). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose and parameter details guide appropriate use.

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