stats_overdue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the filtering logic (due date passed and unresolved) and the specific field used, making the behavior transparent. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but the verb 'Retourne' implies a query operation, and there is no indication of side effects.

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 consists of two short sentences. The first sentence defines the core behavior, and the second adds the technical detail about the field. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter stats tool with an output schema present. The description fully covers what the tool does, including the exact criteria. With no parameters, there are no additional inputs to document, and the output schema handles return value details. The description is complete for this level of 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters beyond the schema, which is empty. It adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 overdue tickets (due date passed and unresolved), using a specific verb 'Retourne' and defining exactly what qualifies. This distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like stats_by_priority or stats_by_status, which focus on other 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 usage context: use this tool to get overdue tickets. It mentions the underlying GLPI field 'time_to_resolve', which helps the agent understand the data source. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter stats tool, the intended use is clear.

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