mac_fsevents_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, but does not mention whether it reads or modifies data, performance implications, authentication requirements, or potential side effects.

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 succinct, using a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing the output components explicitly.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the output (count, time range, event type counts) but lacks detail on the format, specific event types, or any limitations. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 single parameter fseventsd_path is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves statistics about FSEvents records, specifying the outputs: total count, time range, and event type counts. It uniquely differentiates from sibling tools like mac_fsevents_search by focusing on aggregate data.

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 for obtaining summary statistics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mac_fsevents_search. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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