get_archive_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are cached server-side for 30 seconds and that responses include 'cached' and 'cacheAgeSec' fields for freshness. This provides good behavioral transparency for a read-only stats tool.

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: the first sentence lists the return fields and the second adds caching details. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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 (no parameters, no output schema). The description lists all return fields and caching behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the response. However, it does not specify the exact data types or structure, but it is adequate for this simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 returns aggregate stats for the user's recording archive and lists the specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_archive_entries (which returns individual entries) and archives_by_date_range (which returns archives in a date range).

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 the tool is for retrieving aggregate stats, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives is given.

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