timeweb_get_server_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic purpose and metric list, without mentioning output format behavior, date range defaults, pagination, or any other operational details. This is a significant gap for a data-returning tool.

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 with no filler. It immediately communicates the core purpose and includes the key metric types, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what the agent can expect in the response. It lists the metrics but does not describe whether results are time-series, how date ranges behave, or what the response structure looks like. This leaves the agent with important gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, though it does reinforce the resource types (CPU, RAM, Disk, Network) that the tool covers. No extra value is provided, justifying the baseline.

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's function: 'Get resource usage statistics for a cloud server' and lists specific metric types (CPU, RAM, Disk, Network). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like timeweb_get_server (server details) and timeweb_get_app_statistics (app-level stats), meeting the bar for specific verb+resource+scope.

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 implies usage context by mentioning server resource statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but guidance is minimal, so it earns a 3.

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