coeus_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but the single sentence only states what the tool returns. It does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, server access, rate-limit implications, or response format, leaving an agent to infer that a stats call is safe. The implied read-only nature adds a little context, but not enough to exceed a 2.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, and it contains the essential resource scope in its first few words while remaining appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool. The terseness is genuine conciseness, not under-specification, since the management of the single-enum parameter sits in the schema as it should. It holds to a 4 because the price of that brevity is the missing behavioral context and section detail not reflected in the dimension.

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 low complexity (one optional enum parameter) the description plus schema make a basic call complete, but the missing output schema and the absence of annotations raise the burden for return values, units, and any quirks, none of which are described. The agent can probably invoke it correctly but cannot know what a full response looks like, making this a minimum-viable 3.

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 schema already covers the only parameter, reporting 100% schema_description_coverage, so the baseline is 3 and the tool description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond mapping the enum values ('coeus', 'cache', 'rate') to the resource domains named in the sentence. The schema's own parameter description 'Section' is tautological, but the enum meaning otherwise falls back to the tool description's resource list. This matches the high-coverage baseline of 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 uses a specific verb plus a precise resource: 'Return consolidated Coeus server, cache, and rate-limit statistics. The enumerated resource scope (server, cache, rate-limit) makes the tool's purpose fairly distinct from sibling tools like coeus_healthcheck or coeus_version, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings. This is clear but without explicit sibling differentiation, so a 4.

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?

Dimensional coverage provides zero context for when to use this tool over alternatives such as coeus_healthcheck, coeus_runtime_diagnostics, or coeus_capabilities with no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional guidance. An agent receives no help choosing between the statistics tool and the diagnostics tools. That gap puts it at no guidance more than no guidance exists, scoring a 2.

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