reliability_for

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states it provides 'reliability stats' but does not specify whether this operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries or computes statistics.

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 very short (6 words) and has no wasted words, but it is structured as a noun phrase rather than a sentence, and lacks essential detail. Conciseness is good but at the expense of clarity.

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 description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively. It lacks details on when to use it, what constitutes a category, or how to interpret the results. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to orient the agent, which it fails to do.

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 0%, yet the tool description adds minimal parameter semantics. It references 'category' and 'window' but does not explain valid values, format, or constraints for category (e.g., is it an ID, name?). The window_days parameter is not described beyond the default in schema. The description fails to provide meaningful guidance.

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 uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, and does not explicitly state the action (get/compute). It specifies 'for one category over a window' but lacks detail on what the stats include. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reliability category stats, but could be clearer.

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 usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings like find_invariants or weak_spots, nor does it state any prerequisites or context for usage.

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