network_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get,' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose what statistics are returned (queue depth, counts, rates), whether the call has performance implications, or what the response format looks like. There is no contradiction, but the transparency beyond the basic action is minimal.

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 nine-word sentence with the verb and core resource front-loaded, and zero filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter, the input side is fully covered by the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description's vague term 'statistics' leaves the return value undefined, and the read-only nature is only implied by the word 'Get.' Adequate for a simple tool, but a short phrase describing what metrics are returned would complete it.

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 coverage is 100% and networkId is already documented as 'The network ID,' so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes only marginal context by indicating the network owns a dldata queue, which slightly clarifies what networkId refers to, but adds no format, constraints, or selection guidance for the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('queue statistics for a network'), and the parenthetical '(dldata queue)' narrows the scope beyond the tool name alone, helping distinguish it from siblings like network_get (network entity settings) and data_network_dldata_list (data records). However, it never defines what 'statistics' actually includes, so the resource noun remains somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as network_get, data_network_dldata_count, data_network_dldata_list, or dldata_buffer_list. No exclusions, no alternatives, and no decision context are provided, leaving the agent to guess which of the many network/data tools is appropriate.

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