project_stats

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

The description indicates a read-only operation by saying 'Get ... counts,' which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior when project_id is null, or the exact structure of the return values. With no annotations, this partial transparency is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. While concise, it could benefit from slight expansion to include output details or usage notes, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema (assumed to describe return structure) and the relatively simple operation, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify the behavior when project_id is null (e.g., current project or all projects?) and omits any note about output schema references.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the parameter 'project_id' is self-explanatory from its name. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the parameter name, such as acceptable formats, project scope, or default behavior.

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 retrieves counts for nodes, links, drawings, and snapshots of a project. The specific enumeration of resource types distinguishes it from generic project tools like project_get or project_update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use project_stats versus alternatives such as gns3_statistics or individual list tools (node_list, link_list, etc.). The description does not specify context or exclusion criteria.

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