get_sdwan_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond naming metric categories, it does not disclose whether statistics are real-time or historical, aggregation windows, permissions, pagination, or error behavior for an unknown device.

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 with the resource and scope front-loaded. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant text.

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 tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly but not enough to interpret or qualify the results. With no annotations and no output schema, the missing behavioral details leave a noticeable gap.

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 schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage ('Device ID or system-ip'), so the description need not repeat it. The phrase 'for a device' is consistent but adds no meaning beyond the 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 ('Get') and resource ('SD-WAN statistics') scoped to a device, and names concrete metric categories (ACL drops, data policy, device metrics). It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling statistics tools such as get_control_statistics or get_system_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The device-scoped read is implied by the name and description, but nothing helps an agent choose it over the numerous other get_*_statistics tools.

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