get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the stats are 'live' and lists the metrics, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions required, or the fact that it may only be relevant during streaming. This leaves some gaps, so 3 is appropriate.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the stats types and a use case. It is front-loaded with 'Live perf stats' and contains no wasted words, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key content (CPU/memory, FPS, skipped frames, disk space) and its purpose. It does not specify exact return formats or units, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand its function and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools fits here.

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 that the tool provides live performance stats (CPU/memory, FPS, skipped frames, disk space), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_output_status or get_stream_status. The verb 'get' and resource 'stats' are explicit, and the list of metrics leaves no ambiguity.

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 gives a specific use case: 'Use to check for dropped-frame problems mid-stream.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, which would merit a 5.

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