rvtdocs_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state safety (no side effects), error conditions, or limits on the 'hours' parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence states the purpose, second lists the returned metrics. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (tool call counts, success rates, etc.). Missing an explicit statement of read-only behavior and potential error conditions, but overall sufficient for the low 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (the 'hours' parameter has no description in the schema). The description mentions 'specified time period' which relates to the parameter, but does not explicitly map to the parameter name or explain its meaning. Partially compensates but could be more direct.

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?

Clearly states the tool queries usage statistics for the rvtdocs MCP server, listing specific metrics (tool call counts, success rates, cache hit rates, top queries/failures). Distinct from sibling tools like rvtdocs_batch, rvtdocs_fetch, and rvtdocs_session_get, which serve different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, without indicating use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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