run_stat_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'execute', without explaining whether the command toggles a display, requires a running game session, or has any side effects. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 that communicates the essential action and examples without extraneous words. Every element contributes to understanding, achieving high efficiency.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as what happens after execution (e.g., stats appear on HUD) or any prerequisites. It meets the basic requirement but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, and the schema already provides the parameter 'stat' with examples ('fps', 'unit', 'memory'). The description merely repeats these examples, adding minimal value beyond the structured data, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool executes a 'stat console command' with concrete examples ('stat fps', 'stat unit', 'stat memory'), indicating a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the broader 'execute_console_command' sibling by focusing on stat commands, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_console_command', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer that this is specialized for stat commands without explicit direction.

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