get_chat_plugin_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'shows usage statistics' without mentioning read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no data is available.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose, but it mixes Spanish text with an English tool name and includes an extraneous [query] marker. The structure could be improved for clarity.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain the returned data format and scope. It lists some stats but omits whether results are totals, time-bound, or how to interpret them. The lack of output schema means the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 input schema has zero parameters and is 100% covered, so the baseline is 4. However, the description includes a stray [query] which falsely implies a parameter, reducing the score to 3.

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 that the tool retrieves usage statistics for the Chat Web plugin, listing specific metrics like conversations, messages, active sessions, referrers, and countries. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_plugin_stats or get_analytics, and the [query] suffix is confusing given no input parameters.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_plugin_stats, get_analytics, or other plugin-specific stats tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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