telys_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable beyond-annotation detail by stating that the tool fails when the collection does not exist and that runtime-provided counters vary by runtime version. This gives an agent useful expectations about behavior and failure modes.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, required inputs, and failure behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and failure behavior. The only missing element is explicit sibling differentiation, but the stated purpose and output fields are enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'collection' string parameter. It does clarify that collection names a Telys memory collection, is required, and that a missing collection causes failure. It could add format examples or valid sources, but for a single self-descriptive parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report stats for one Telys memory collection', then enumerates the returned fields (name, partition key name, live external-id count, runtime counters). This makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from siblings like telys_list_collections and telys_count.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool 'to confirm a collection exists and gauge its size', giving a clear context for invocation. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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