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 does reveal the output composition (summary statistics including count, breakdowns, date range, stream count) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor does it mention any potential performance implications or data freshness considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then enumerates the specific output components. Every word contributes value with 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, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonably complete picture of what the tool returns. It lists the key statistics, though it could slightly improve by clarifying whether the stats are global or per-user, but 'your captured thoughts' implies the user's scope, making it 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 coverage is 100% (empty properties). According to the baseline for 0 params, the description gets a 4; it adds no parameter details because there are none, and the description focuses appropriately on the output rather than inputs.

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's purpose: to get summary statistics about captured thoughts. It specifies the exact breakdowns included (total count, classification, category, date range, stream count), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_thoughts or get_thought which return individual items or lists.

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 clearly implies the use case: when an aggregated overview of thought statistics is needed rather than individual thought details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficiently differentiates it from sibling tools like get_usage or list_recent_thoughts.

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