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 disclosing behavior. It states the tool provides statistics but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or has no side effects. For a stats tool this is likely non-destructive, but the description leaves that unspoken, which is a gap given the absence of 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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific statistics. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately summarizes what the tool does. Mentioning document count, tags, and index age is enough for an agent to decide when to call it. The output schema supplies return details, so omitting return format isn't a deficiency.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description has no need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and there is nothing about the inputs that the description fails to cover.

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 that the tool provides statistics about the knowledge base, enumerating specific data points (document count, tags, index age). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge_base (which returns matches) and list_documents (which returns items), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention that it's for aggregate summaries rather than per-item retrieval, when to prefer it over listing documents, or any exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you want overall statistics,' but this is not made explicit.

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