Get catalog statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state that the tool returns counts, implying a read-only operation, and references the 'loaded catalog snapshot' as a precondition. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the snapshot is not loaded. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key precondition (loaded catalog snapshot). It does not mention the exact format of the counts or any additional context, but for such a simple operation this is largely sufficient.

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 is an empty object, so the schema fully covers all parameters (100% coverage). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about parameters. It correctly remains silent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource ('counts by resource type') and the context ('loaded catalog snapshot'). It unambiguously states what the tool does and is clearly distinct from any sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as analyze_catalog_gaps or compare_resources. It does not mention any exclusions or preferable conditions. For a simple read-only stats tool, some context about typical use cases would be useful.

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