parser_preset_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain what 'decayed' means and what statistics are computed, but it never states that the operation is read-only or whether it has side effects. The tool is clearly a stats/status query, so the omission is moderate rather than severe.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('How well a stored parser is still working') and then enumerates the exact output components. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the three categories of results and explains the decayed flag. It could specify value formats (e.g., percentages or ratios) or error behavior for unknown presets, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that preset_id comes from save_parser_preset. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to a 'stored parser', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (a stored parser/preset) and the specific data it reports: success rate per field, mean coverage, and a decayed flag. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like dataset_status or list_proxies.

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 phrase 'over the recent runs' gives clear context for when to use this tool: after a parser has been exercised, to assess whether it still works. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no routing guidance is strictly needed.

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