Storm Stat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine scope information beyond that (the five statistic domains), but nothing about freshness, cost, or aggregation behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the domain list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragment style gives the agent less to anchor on than a full verb-led clause would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here. Still, for a multi-domain aggregate-statistics tool sitting among 21 siblings with overlapping map/state/diff concepts, the description leaves it unclear which subsystem question this answers and how granular the results are. Adequate but with a real routing gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated domains are the only semantic content and they map to output sections rather than inputs.

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 names the resource (statistics) and enumerates the domains covered (database, cache, BSim, map, index), so the agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as storm_map, which plausibly also reports map-related information. Purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of what question this tool answers, when to prefer it over storm_map or storm_state_surface, or what its output would let the agent do. The agent must infer intent purely from the label 'statistics'.

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