get_static_bundle_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists data categories but does not say whether the tool is read-only, what source it probes, whether it has side effects, or how it handles missing build artifacts. The '[probe]' prefix hints at inspection but does not meaningfully disclose behavior beyond the output list.

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 compact and front-loaded, packing the resource and output categories into one short fragment. The '[probe]' prefix is minor noise)Skip but doesn't hurt understanding. It is appropriately sized for a simple stats retrieval tool, though the fragmentary phrasing could be tightened into a complete sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description does provide a useful list of return categories, but it omits units, formatting, and whether all categories are always present. It also does not clarify how the service/namespace parameters map to the 'served frontend build.' The tool is simple enough that this is adequate, but there are clear gaps for an agent invoking it without prior knowledge.

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%, so the schema already documents 'service' and 'namespace' in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, such as clarifying that the service should correspond to a frontend workload or that namespace is required. This meets the baseline for a fully documented schema but adds no extra semantic value.

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 names a specific resource ('served frontend build') and enumerates concrete outputs: JS/CSS/image bytes, largest files, hashed vs unhashed chunks, and source maps shipped. This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishable from related runtime-oriented siblings like get_web_vitals or get_page_load_breakdown. It could be more explicit by stating 'Returns statistics about...', but the meaning is still evident.

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 is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions such as 'use get_web_vitals for runtime performance' or 'only for frontend workloads serving static assets.' The frontend-build wording implies a context, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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