get_usage_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is implicit. The description adds output details but no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra 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?

The description is short but includes a third sentence about referencing style ('DC: ...'), which is not directly relevant to tool behavior and detracts from conciseness. It could be more focused on the core purpose and output.

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 lack of params and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and return values. It misses potential details like scope or reset behavior, but overall is adequate for a simple read-only 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params, and the description does not contradict this.

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 usage statistics for debugging and analysis.' It specifies the output (summary, success/failure rates, performance metrics) and distinguishes it from siblings, which focus on file/process operations.

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 a clear use context ('for debugging and analysis'), guiding when to invoke, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is needed.

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