stats_by_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool counts open tickets and groups them by status, which is a read-only statistical operation. However, it does not clarify details like whether all statuses are included, if there are any date filters, or the exact output structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core functionality. It contains no redundant words and effectively communicates the tool's 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does. It counts open tickets grouped by status, which is a complete purpose for a stats tool. A slight gap is the lack of context about potential filters or edge cases, but these are not necessary for a basic stats retrieval.

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, and the schema is empty, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero params is set to 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the operation itself rather than parameter details.

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 that the tool returns the number of open tickets per status, using a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('tickets ouverts par statut'). This distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like stats_by_priority, which focus on different dimensions.

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 used to get ticket counts grouped by status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since the purpose is straightforward, the usage context is implied rather than clearly outlined.

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