get_audit_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read operation by stating 'Return current audit trail statistics,' but it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides specific outputs. Every sentence is informative and without extraneous content.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema). The description enumerates the key output fields (counts of created, updated, skipped, errored records, average time). It lacks an explicit statement about the return format (e.g., JSON object), but for a low-complexity tool, this is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per guidelines, for 0 params, the baseline is 4, and no value is added beyond the schema.

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 'Return' and the resource 'current audit trail statistics' for the active migration session. It specifies the types of counts provided (created, updated, skipped, errored) and average time per record, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like check_migration_state or verify_migration_counts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The description implies usage for retrieving audit stats, but does not mention when other tools like verify_migration_counts would be more appropriate.

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