redmineflux_core_project_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It lists the exact counts returned and notes performance characteristics. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but that is implied by the nature of the tool and the provided details.

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?

Three short sentences plus a parameter note; front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and performance. Output schema exists, so return values need no further detail.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the single parameter: 'Project identifier. Empty = stats for ALL projects.' This adds the default behavior that is not apparent from the schema's default of an empty string.

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?

States 'Get issue count statistics grouped by status for one or all projects' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. Clearly distinguishes from list_issues and project_summary by emphasizing grouped counts.

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?

Explicitly says to use when someone asks 'how many issues?', 'what's the progress?', or 'give me numbers,' and contrasts with list_issues by noting it's much faster than calling it multiple times.

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