vnt_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns statistics but does not mention whether it is read-only, any prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or potential side effects. The safety profile is ambiguous.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and action. However, it is so terse that it omits essential detail, making it feel incomplete rather than appropriately concise.

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 insufficiently complete. It fails to clarify the 'work' parameter or the nature of the returned statistics, making it difficult for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema lists a single required 'work' string parameter with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'work' refers to or how it should be formatted, leaving a significant gap at 0% schema description coverage.

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 returns translation completion statistics for AI bundle.jsonl, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other vnt_* stats tools by referencing this particular file/format, though it could more explicitly contrast with Excel/Google Docs stats 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vnt_excel_line_stats or vnt_google_docs_line_stats. The description simply states what it does without any contextual cues.

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