get_project_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it recursively scans directories, how long it may take, or what output format to expect. It only states a generic purpose without revealing any behavioral traits beyond 'get statistics.'

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 overlapping sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not clarify what constitutes 'detailed statistics,' how the two parameters affect the output, or how this tool differs from analyze_project. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (directory, includeTests) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get detailed statistics about the project codebase' identifies a clear action (get) and resource (project codebase), but 'statistics' is vague and could overlap with sibling tools like analyze_project or find_dependencies. It does not specify what kind of statistics (e.g., line counts, file counts, complexity) are provided.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (analyze_project, find_dependencies, search_symbols_code). The description implies usage for obtaining statistics but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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