get_api_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as retrieving stats and cache, but does not mention implications of the 'reset' parameter (e.g., clearing statistics) or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks important detail for a full behavioral picture.

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 long, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and the use case in the second. No wasted words or filler.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, but the description lacks details about return format or the behavior of resetting. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning typical response structure or reset effects.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'reset' parameter described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so it scores the baseline 3.

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 retrieves API usage statistics and cache status for monitoring and debugging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific data (e.g., get_amenities, get_buildings) or test connectivity (test_connection).

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 explicitly says "used for monitoring and debugging," providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings.

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