paperless_get_statistics

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

Description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the privacy tier and confirming no document content involvement. It lists the specific statistics returned, giving a clear picture of behavior without surprises.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key privacy tier indicator, followed by a succinct list of what is returned. No extraneous information.

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), the description provides a complete overview of the returned statistics. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but that is standard. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter info to add. However, the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is not evident from the empty schema alone. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns library-wide statistics including totals and breakdowns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'metadata only' and 'no document content involved', differentiating from document-level tools like paperless_get_document_metadata.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, the description implies this is for aggregate statistics and safe metadata queries. The sibling tool names provide context, but more explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for document specifics) would improve clarity.

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