instructions_get_statistics_detail

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

The description conveys a read-only operation and adds the behavioral detail that statistics are broken down per state, which goes beyond the tool's name. However, it does not explain what states are included, whether the instruction must be in a particular status, or what the response structure looks like. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and leaves these gaps.

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 wasted words. It states the action and object directly, making it easy to parse. The brevity is appropriate for the tool's simple parameter surface.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for invoking the tool: the agent knows to pass an instruction ID and expects per-state statistics. However, the meaning of 'per-state statistics' and the response shape are not elaborated, which could leave an agent unsure how to interpret results. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter `id` has a description ('Integer ID'), which is minimal. The description indicates the ID refers to an instruction, but this is largely redundant with the tool name. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the score is at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies a precise resource: detailed per-state statistics for an instruction. The word 'per-state' distinguishes it from the sibling `instructions_get_statistics`, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. It is clear enough to understand the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings such as `instructions_get_statistics`, `instructions_get_responses`, or `instructions_get_by_id`. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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