vnt_excel_line_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only calculation of stats but does not explicitly state whether the tool reads a file, has side effects, requires specific file formats, or returns a structure. It gives no information about permissions, resource access, or error behavior, leaving the agent to guess.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's context and includes a helpful parenthetical enumerating the stat categories. It is efficiently written with no wasted words, though it is terse and functions more as a label than a full description.

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 the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the expected input (path format or file type) or the structure of the returned statistics, nor does it define key terms like 'checked' or 'edited'. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'path' parameter. The parameter is simply named 'path' with no type or format details, and the description does not state that it should point to an Excel file. The agent must infer this from the tool name, which is insufficient given the complete absence of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('VNTextPatch Excel') and the output type ('line statistics'), listing specific categories (total/translated/checked/edited). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'vnt_google_docs_line_stats' by specifying Excel rather than Google Docs. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'calculate', making it a noun phrase rather than a full action description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose Excel line stats over 'vnt_google_docs_line_stats' or 'vnt_stats', nor does it state any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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