get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns') and specifies the categories of data returned. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, access requirements, rate limits, or data freshness considerations, though the absence of such is unsurprising for a simple statistics tool.

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 two short sentences with the main verb and object front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning: 'system-wide' scopes the tool, and the list of returned items directly informs the agent. There is no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the purpose and the specific data returned, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return structures.

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 input schema is empty. Since there are no parameters to document, the description need not add semantic detail. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies here, and the description's mention of what the stats include is sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get system-wide statistics.' It enumerates the returned contents (node counts, memory stats, reinforcement metrics, available skills, configured models), making its scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on narrower or domain-specific queries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools such as query_knowledge or get_pipeline_config, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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