Platform Stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of what counts are returned (threat, detection, IOC, MITRE, actor) but doesn't disclose aggregate semantics like whether counts are deduplicated, time-bounded, or filtered, which would add value beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence that enumerates the five data categories with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action term and is perfectly sized for a zero-parameter aggregate endpoint.

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 0 parameters and annotations declaring it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description covers the primary behavioral aspects adequately. An output schema exists to explain return structure. However, the description could note whether counts are global/total versus time-windowed, which would improve completeness for a stats endpoint.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on what data the tool returns rather than parameter behavior, which is the correct compensation given the empty 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+resource ('Get aggregate platform statistics') and enumerates the specific data categories included (threat, detection, IOC, MITRE technique, actor counts), clarifying scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_enrichment_overview or get_landscape_briefing, which could overlap conceptually.

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 this is a high-level overview tool, but it doesn't state when to use it versus sibling alternatives like get_enrichment_overview or get_landscape_briefing. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, making usage context clear-ish but not differentiated.

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