stat_sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by outlining the types of statistics returned, but it does not mention potential side effects, performance implications (e.g., data volume for many sites), authentication needs, or any caveats. As a read-only fetch operation, the risk is low, but the description omits these 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a concise list of the statistics covered. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently communicates its scope and return highlights. It explains enough for an agent to know what data to expect and that it covers all sites, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). Per guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. There are no parameter details to clarify, so no additional description is 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names a clear resource: 'statistics for all sites on this controller.' It also enumerates the types of statistics (number of devices, clients, guests, health info), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites (site listing) and list_health (health-only).

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 context: use this tool when you need comprehensive statistics for all sites. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like stat_full_status or list_health, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. This falls under implied usage rather than clear directives.

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