stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (returning counts) and is not misleading, but it does not explicitly state output format, access requirements, or limits. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple stats 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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core value. It is concise with no redundant information, earning a perfect score.

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?

As a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the general purpose but lacks explicit return structure and usage guidance. It is adequate for the simplicity but not fully comprehensive, leaving some contextual gaps.

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, so the empty schema is complete and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about the dimensions of the counts (source, kind, trust), which enriches understanding of the result.

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 indicates the tool provides counts of the corpus by source, kind, and trust, giving a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings (recall, timeline, conflicts) by focusing on aggregate statistics, but lacks an explicit action verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it returns, leaving usage entirely implied.

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