iota_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes returns but does not state side effects or safety (e.g., read-only). Assumes no destructive behavior but should explicitly confirm.

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?

Mostly concise, with a clear summary and specifics. Minor redundancy in the last line ('Returns: Programme-wide statistics and summaries') repeats earlier 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?

Given no inputs and presence of output schema, description adequately covers what the tool does. Could mention that no arguments are needed, but overall sufficient for a simple stats tool.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by detailing the output structure, compensating for the lack of parameter info (baseline 4 for 0 params).

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?

Clearly states it returns summary statistics for the IOTA programme, listing specific breakdowns (total groups/islands, continent, DXCC count, credited groups). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific islands or searches.

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?

Lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the tool name and description. No exclusionary context is provided.

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