get_processing_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. There is no mention of rate limits, data freshness, or effects on system state. For a stats tool, a minimal safety note would be expected.

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 sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose. It efficiently lists the metrics without unnecessary words. The listing could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains concise and direct.

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 stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key returned metrics but lacks details on output format, default behavior when 'hours' is omitted, and any aggregation logic. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that could affect correct usage.

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% (the single 'hours' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Hours to include' – it does not clarify the default value, whether it includes partial hours, or the range. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the parameter adequately.

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 returns hourly processing metrics and lists specific metrics (total messages, spam count, classified, average latency). It is a specific verb+resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_spam_stats or get_data_quality_stats, though the listed metrics hint at its niche.

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 instead of alternatives (e.g., get_spam_stats, get_cache_stats). It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or context. Given the large number of sibling stats tools, this omission leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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