show_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 says 'calculate and show', which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention whether it requires certain preconditions or what happens if data is missing. Without this, the agent cannot predict the tool's behavior beyond the most obvious reading.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and outputs. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless tool, though it could add a clause about scope or return values without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 because it is efficient but lacks some useful detail.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what 'streaks' refer to (protocols? habits?), what the returned data looks like (percentages per what?), or how it relates to the sibling 'show_tracker'. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or attempt calls to understand this tool's role.

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 the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 states a clear action ('calculate and show') and a specific output ('streaks and completion percentages'), so the agent knows what the tool does at a basic level. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling 'show_tracker', which likely overlaps in purpose, so it misses the full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_tracker' or 'reset_tracker'. The description implies it is for viewing streaks and percentages, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., initialized user, active protocols) or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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