get_translation_memory_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects like non-destructive nature or permission requirements. It mentions the types of statistics returned but doesn't describe format, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by specific details about what statistics are included. Both sentences earn their place by adding valuable information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what statistics are retrieved, which complements the output schema. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like safety guarantees or typical use cases to be more complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a high baseline score for not introducing confusion about non-existent 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: 'Get statistics about the translation memory' with specific details about what statistics are included (total entries, enabled/disabled counts, breakdown by source type). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_translation_memory' or 'add_translation_memory_entry' by focusing on statistical retrieval rather than search or modification operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_translation_memory' or 'get_languages'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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