uma_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the statistics are 'cumulative' and scoped to 'this server process', which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether stats reset, or what the actual statistical fields represent, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and scope without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It clearly states the return subject but omits details about what statistics are included (e.g., counts, rates, thresholds) and what 'Uma filtering statistics' encompasses. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter utility, but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the response format.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter descriptions are needed.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('cumulative Uma filtering statistics for this server process'). It distinguishes from siblings by using the term 'filtering statistics', which implies a monitoring/retrieval role rather than applying filters or scoring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings uma_filter or uma_score. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess when this is the appropriate tool based solely on the name.

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