get_library_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. It fully describes the tool's behavior: it returns a formatted summary with total papers, counts by source and item type, recent references, and sync state. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is sufficient for a stat overview tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening, usage guidance, return details, and sibling tool mention. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description completely explains the tool's output and usage context. It covers all relevant aspects: what it reports, when to use it, and related tools.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' adding clarity. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description meets it without needing further detail.

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 summarizes the literature library at a glance, listing specific outputs like total papers, breakdown by source and item type, recent references, and sync state. It explicitly pairs with sibling tools search_library and sync_zotero_library, differentiating its purpose.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to see how big and how current your reference collection is before searching or citing.' It mentions sibling tools but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Overall, it offers clear context for appropriate use.

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