stats_by_category

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 states the tool returns a count, but it does not explicitly confirm that it is a read-only operation, does not mention any prerequisites or side effects, and lacks details about scope (e.g., all tickets vs. a subset). The description is too minimal to provide full transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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's simplicity (no params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it is a read-only aggregate, but overall it covers the essential context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 parameters. No additional information is needed or provided, which is appropriate.

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 the number of tickets by ITIL category ('Retourne le nombre de tickets par catégorie ITIL'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling stats tools like stats_by_priority and stats_by_status by explicitly mentioning the category grouping.

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: if you need ticket counts grouped by ITIL category, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as filtering options. The guidance is only implied through the tool's purpose, not articulated.

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