stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only summary operation, but it does not explain whether counts apply to the entire archive, whether any scoping exists, or what the response shape is. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 names the resource and all counted categories. There is no filler, and every word contributes useful meaning.

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, the description is largely complete: it enumerates what counts are included and indicates an archive-wide summary. Since there is no output schema, it could have described the return structure more explicitly, but the simplicity of the tool limits the gap.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail because there are no 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 indicates the resource (archive) and content (counts of documents, tags, correspondents, types, and storage paths). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and list_correspondents by emphasizing counts rather than full listings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for aggregate counts rather than detailed listings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose stats over list_tags, list_correspondents, or search_documents, and no mention of when not to use it.

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