run_stat_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Execute' and gives examples, without revealing whether the command is read-only, returns output, toggles state, or has side effects. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that may modify viewport state.

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, efficient sentence. It includes the essential action and examples with no redundant or filler content, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are notable gaps given the existence of a similar sibling tool. The description does not fully self-contain the needed context.

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 schema description covers the parameter with examples ('fps', 'unit'), but the tool description presents examples as 'stat fps' which could be misinterpreted as the full command string rather than the parameter value alone. This inconsistency introduces ambiguity instead of enhancing clarity, even though schema coverage is high.

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 the tool 'Execute a stat console command' with concrete examples (stat fps, stat unit, stat memory), making it specific and distinguishable from generic console execution tools. The verb+resource pattern is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage through the 'stat' focus but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'execute_console_command' or any other alternative. There is no explicit exclusion or comparative guidance, so usage is only implied rather than clearly directed.

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