get_actor_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists some output fields, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe the return structure, or mention any edge cases. This is adequate for a simple stats fetcher but lacks depth.

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 is front-loaded with the key action and resource, followed by parenthetical output examples. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low-complexity tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (success rate, moment counts, top tags). It does not predict the exact return format, but the listed fields give enough context for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (actor_id and window) at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get statistics for an actor' and lists concrete outputs (success rate, moment counts, top tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stats_overview, which likely targets overall statistics.

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 when one needs per-actor statistics, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like stats_overview. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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