get_image_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The description only lists the statistics, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the operation ('Get image statistics') and then lists the specific statistics. There is no unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists the statistics but does not indicate the return structure (e.g., JSON object, array), nor does it clarify that the operation is read-only. While not severely deficient, an agent might need more context to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents view_id as a PixInsight view ID. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain a valid view ID or whether it is optional. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'image statistics', and enumerates specific statistics (median, MAD, min, max, per-channel medians). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_dimensions, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with the many measure_* tools, so it misses the full differentiator.

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 alternatives such as measure_uniformity or measure_stars. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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