get_api_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a read operation (getting stats and cache status) and implies non-destructiveness. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects of the 'reset' parameter. The description adds some value beyond the schema 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?

Description is concise with two sentences, front-loading purpose and use case. No unnecessary content. Could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for purpose and usage), but overall efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers purpose and general use, but lacks details on return format or behavior when reset is true. Meets minimum viability for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the single 'reset' parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as what resetting statistics entails. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves API usage statistics and cache status, using a specific verb ('gets') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch map features (amenities, buildings, etc.). However, it could be more precise about the exact data returned (e.g., counts, timestamps).

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 indicates usage for monitoring and debugging, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling context implies differentiation, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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