mist_get_device_stats

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description repeats this implicitly ('Get') but adds no further behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, authorization needs, or whether stats are real-time or aggregated. With annotations covering the core safety trait, the description adds minimal incremental transparency.

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 concise sentences: first sentence states primary purpose, second elaborates on scope. No redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only, has output schema), the description covers the essentials. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. Minor improvement would be to hint at common use cases or frequency of updates, but current level is sufficient.

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%, with both parameters (org, duration) fully described including type, defaults, and options. The description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema; it only reiterates that results cover all devices. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the tool retrieves device statistics for an organization, specifying the resource ('device statistics') and verb ('Get'). It lists device types (APs, switches, gateways) which partially distinguishes it from sibling tools like mist_get_client_stats or mist_get_sle_summary. However, 'statistics' remains vague; more specificity about metrics would raise clarity to a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mist_get_sle_summary or mist_get_client_stats. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for invocation. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.

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