cms_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation returning statistics, which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations such as caching, data freshness, or whether the statistics reflect real-time or snapshot data. The description is straightforward but lacks depth on behavioral details.

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 sentence that clearly lists the output categories. It is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the list of categories is somewhat packed together without separators (commas or bullets), which slightly reduces readability. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It adequately explains the return content, but it does not describe output format, pagination, or potential errors. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally complete but could be improved by adding a note about the data being aggregated or representative.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The description adds value by specifying what statistics are returned, which is meaningful context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage (effectively no params), a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description provides relevant detail.

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 states it returns CMS inventory statistics, listing specific categories like requirements, domains, categories, risk register rows, etc. This is a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('CMS inventory statistics'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the list of statistics distinguishes it well.

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 implies this is the tool to use for aggregated counts or summaries rather than detailed lists. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus, e.g., cms_list_requirements for a list of all requirements or cms_gap_report for a report. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no prerequisites or constraints are given.

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