proj_get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that statistics come from the compiled project and that omitting project_path uses the active project, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it may trigger compilation, or how fresh the counts are.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short. The Returns section repeats the earlier counts summary, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and return contents sufficiently to invoke it correctly. It is only incomplete on sibling differentiation and explicit safety/behavior details.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single parameter is fully explained: project_path is optional and None falls back to the active project. That is exactly the semantic detail needed beyond the schema's type definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get design statistics from the compiled project, and enumerates the returned counts. It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as pcb_get_board_statistics or proj_get_board_info.

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?

Gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. The compiled-project context is implied, but an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to other statistics/board-info tools.

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