task_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by noting 'live' notification counts and identifying the dimensions counted, but it does not explicitly say this is a read-only aggregation or whether counts are cached/real-time beyond the word 'live'.

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 and is front-loaded with the main counting behavior. Slight ambiguity in 'open categories' prevents it from being maximally clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-parameter stats tool, the description is adequate but leaves 'open categories' undefined and does not clarify that this is task-focused aggregation.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 says 'Counts by status and open categories' and includes 'live JARVIS notification counts,' which gives a rough idea of an aggregation tool. However, 'open categories' is vague, and it never explicitly says it counts tasks, relying on the tool name. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_open_tasks or search_tasks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than list_open_tasks, search_tasks, or other siblings. The description states what it counts but not the decision context for selecting it.

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