get_domain_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the aggregation behavior and included metrics, but does not clarify whether results are counts, percentages, or raw lists, nor does it explicitly confirm read-only behavior or handle empty-data scenarios. The name 'get_' and statistical nature imply safety, but the description alone offers limited depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource. It contains zero redundant text and fully conveys the core functionality in a compact form.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and grouping scope. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_status_code_stats, but the 'by domain' phrase provides sufficient context for an agent to select this tool.

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 100% because the only parameter, 'source', has a full description explaining its behavior. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high 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 a specific verb '汇总' (summarize/aggregate), the resource '请求统计信息' (request statistics), and the grouping key '按域名' (by domain), while specifying included dimensions (method and status code distribution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_status_code_stats, which likely provides overall stats.

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 use case is implied: '按域名汇总' suggests using this tool when domain-level breakdowns are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_status_code_stats or list_urls_methods, and no mention of 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.