Get Team Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the TEAM_DB_PATH requirement — but says nothing about cost, aggregation window behavior, or empty-DB handling.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource plus returned metrics are front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite clause. Slightly terse to the point of omitting needed parameter context, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

The output schema and rich annotations relieve the description of explaining returns and safety, so the remaining burden is small. Still, with two of three parameters undocumented and no guidance on the team-vs-global statistics split, an agent has open questions before calling it.

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 description coverage is only 33%: workspace_id is documented, but group_by (default 'week') and use_test_db have no descriptions anywhere, and the description does not compensate at all. An agent cannot tell what values group_by accepts or when to set use_test_db, so the description fails to fill the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get statistics for the team database') and enumerates the metrics returned (entry counts, types, top tags, contributor breakdown). This clearly separates it from siblings like team_get_vector_index_stats or team_get_collaboration_matrix, though it never explicitly names the non-team get_statistics as the alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the read-only inspection tool for the team DB, and the prerequisite 'Requires TEAM_DB_PATH' gives a concrete precondition. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_statistics or team_get_vector_index_stats.

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