instructions_get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the output categories and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only query, but it does not explicitly state that no mutation or sending occurs, nor describe pagination or exact response shape. It adds useful context without contradicting anything.

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 redundant phrasing. It states the action and resource first, then lists the returned counts compactly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter summary tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential invocation context (instruction ID) and a practical enumeration of return fields. It is slightly thin on exact response format and sibling routing, but generally complete enough for straightforward use.

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's sole parameter description is 'Integer ID', which mostly restates the name and type. The tool description adds that the ID refers to an instruction and that the stats concern execution, but this is modest additional meaning beyond the high-coverage schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('execution statistics for an instruction') and enumerates the exact summary fields returned: total devices targeted, responded, pending, errors. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like instructions_get_statistics_detail or instructions_get_responses_aggregate, but the summary-count wording makes the core scope clear.

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 when to use the tool: when aggregate execution statistics for one instruction are needed. However, it offers no explicit guidance or exclusions relative to closely related siblings such as instructions_get_statistics_detail, instructions_get_responding_devices, or instructions_get_responses, so an agent is left to infer the differentiation.

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