Collect Project Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds 'local deterministic' which implies consistent output and local-only execution, but provides no further behavioral context such as side-effect limitations or required permissions. This is a modest addition beyond annotations.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and lists the specific stats areas. No filler words. Highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the return value looks like. It lists the categories of stats, which partially indicates the output, but does not specify structure, format, or how the input artifact is used. Given the one-param input and nested object, the description is serviceable but leaves some 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 single parameter 'projectAudits' is fully described in the schema as 'A project-audits/v1 artifact.' The description does not add any further parameter semantics, so it rides on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 collects project audit stats and enumerates specific categories (coverage, counts, risk/signal distributions, etc.). This is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like summarize_project_audits or collect_project_findings, so not a 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions. Sibling tools are present but unaddressed.

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