stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Read-only — index maintenance moved to think(maintenance_op=...) in v0.10', which explains the tool's non-destructive nature and where related operations occur.

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 well-structured with clear sections for actions and arguments. It uses bullet points for readability, though it is slightly verbose in listing actions. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly tighter.

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 complexity (multiple actions, parameters, and an output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, actions, parameter explanations, and behavioral notes. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'action' with a list of valid values and their meanings, 'namespace' as a filter for stats, and 'max_rids' for audit_leak actions. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 is for 'Engine statistics, health check, learned weights, privacy/leak audit, and skill substrate counts'. It lists specific actions with distinct purposes, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'memory' or 'recall'.

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 mentions 'Read-only' and directs index maintenance to 'think(maintenance_op=...)' in v0.10, providing context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives.

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