Get app statistics

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior, listing the output categories in detail (lifetime totals, period totals, etc.). It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness, but for a read-only statistics tool, the main behavior (what it returns) is well covered. The lack of side effects is implied.

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 a single concise paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then lists the output categories, and ends with practical usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the kinds of results it produces. It provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role among siblings and its typical use cases.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter already has a good description. The tool description adds context about the output types (e.g., 'period totals' enriches the meaning of the 'period' parameter), but does not directly explain parameter values or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not significantly beyond 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 specifies that the tool provides 'deeper statistics for a single app' and enumerates the specific types of statistics (lifetime totals, period totals, top projects, daily series, hour-of-day distribution, weekday distribution). It uses compelling example queries like 'when do I usually use Cursor?' to illustrate its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely offer simpler or aggregated data.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'for usage-pattern questions'. It provides concrete examples. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., simpler app breakdowns), which would have made the guidance more complete.

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