sassy_observability_tool_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is in-memory (implying ephemeral state), reports recency scores, and includes pruning_suggestions with an explicit 0.05 threshold. This discloses content and semantics that annotations do not.

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 front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core return statement, then efficiently covers contents, threshold, usage, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds distinct information without fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only stats tool, the description fully explains what will be returned (per-tool stats plus pruning suggestions), the threshold logic, and how it differs from adjacent tools. With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so completely.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' which confirms the empty schema. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns the in-memory tool usage tracker's stats' with concrete contents (call counts, success/error tallies, recency scores, pruning suggestions). It also differentiates from sassy_observability_metrics and sassy_recent_tool_calls, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use to see which tools are actually used and which can be pruned') and names alternatives with their distinguishing conditions: sassy_observability_metrics for aggregate server counters, sassy_recent_tool_calls for raw recent call records. This gives the agent clear routing guidance.

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