get_usage_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (usage summary, success/failure rates, performance metrics) — useful since no output schema exists — but it says nothing about scope limits or time windows.

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 first two sentences are efficient and front-loaded, but the third sentence about 'DC: ...' / 'use Desktop Commander to ...' referencing is boilerplate meta-instruction that adds no selection or invocation value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and use context adequately. Only the lack of any scoping details (time range, filters) leaves a minor 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get usage statistics') and enumerates what is included (tool usage, success/failure rates, performance metrics), distinguishing it from the similar get_recent_tool_calls sibling. However, it never names that sibling or explicitly delineates the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for debugging and analysis' implies a usage context but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance against siblings like get_recent_tool_calls. Usage is only weakly implied.

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