store_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully specifies the data returned and that it aggregates from two stores, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention potential costs, permissions, or consistency caveats.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return store stats') and then specifies the exact metrics. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a parameterless stats tool, the description adequately conveys the return value content. It could mention the format or types of counts, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is substantially complete.

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 fully complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context by explaining what the tool returns, which is sufficient since there are no parameters to document.

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's function: returning store statistics with specific metrics (vector count from Qdrant, node/edge counts from graph). The verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling search/ingestion tools.

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 explicit timing, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The usage is implied—if you need store stats, this is the tool—but there is no direct guidance on when to choose it over siblings or any exclusions.

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