appwrite_get_bucket_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 successfully discloses what data is returned (file count and total size), but omits safety traits (read-only nature), authentication requirements, or rate limiting considerations that agents need for mutation vs. read decisions.

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 appropriately brief, but front-loaded with "[UNIFIED]" which appears to be metadata leakage rather than useful context for the agent. The parenthetical clarifying the statistics returned is efficient and well-placed.

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?

For a simple statistics retrieval tool without an output schema, mentioning the specific metrics returned (file count and size) provides minimal viable completeness. However, the lack of parameter documentation and absence of error condition guidance leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails entirely, providing no semantics for `site` (ambiguous: domain? ID? slug?) or `bucket_id` (format, uniqueness constraints), leaving the agent without guidance on valid inputs.

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 specifies the action (Get), resource (storage statistics), and exact return values (file count and total size), distinguishing it from sibling `appwrite_get_bucket` which would return configuration metadata rather than statistics. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives like `appwrite_list_files` or `appwrite_get_bucket`. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., bucket existence) or suggest when statistical aggregation is preferred over listing individual files.

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