get_review_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool is free and runs locally, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose data freshness, side effects, or permissions needed.

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?

Two sentences: first explains what the tool does, second adds a key usage note (free). No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the input parameter, output contents, and a behavioral trait (free/local). Minor gaps (e.g., live vs cached data) but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 it retrieves aggregate statistics from UIMax reviews, listing specific outputs (total reviews, score trends, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'accessibility_audit' or 'analyze_code' which have distinct purposes.

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 notes the tool is free and runs within Claude Code, implying it should be used when cost is a concern, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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