get_branch_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses support for derived variables via 'defines', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the data source, or any side effects. The description is too brief to cover necessary behavioral traits.

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 front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool having no output schema, the description fails to explain what statistics are returned. It does not cover the required parameters (path, tree_name, branches) or the optional 'selection' and 'defines' parameters sufficiently. For a statistics tool, the return format and typical usage are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 80% and the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'defines' as a capability. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get statistics for branches' clearly indicates the tool returns statistical data about branches, which distinguishes it from listing or reading branches. The mention of 'supports derived variables via defines' adds specificity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_branches or read_branches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_branches (for listing branches) or export_data (for data export). There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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