Project stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states 'for the authenticated user' and implies a read-only GET operation, but does not clarify side effects, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned metrics. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint. It contains no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more descriptive.

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 output schema and zero parameters, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about the return format or specific metrics. It is adequate but leaves ambiguity about what exactly the agent will receive.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not add parameter meaning, but with no parameters this is acceptable. Baseline 4 applies per rules.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool retrieves aggregate project counts/metrics for the authenticated user, using a GET request. The verb 'GET' and resource '/projects/stats' are precise, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (lists individual projects) or get_project (single project).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to prefer project_stats over list_projects or get_project is not addressed. The description lacks any contextual selection criteria.

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