get_task_statistics_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance metrics and return content, but lacks details on return format or potential edge cases. The tool is read-only, which is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured with sections (main description, statistics list, when to use, performance, returns). It is front-loaded with the key action. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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's complexity (aggregate task statistics with optional grouping), the description provides sufficient context: what statistics are returned, optional grouping, performance guidance. Missing output schema is compensated by the 'Returns' summary. Edge cases are not addressed.

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 has 80% coverage with descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the overall output, but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond the schema. The 'ctx' parameter remains undocumented.

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 'Get aggregate task statistics for a note or entire vault' and lists specific statistics. It distinguishes the tool's focus on tasks, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like note_statistics_fs_tool or vault_statistics_fs_tool.

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 includes a 'When to use' section with relevant scenarios (project progress tracking, workload analysis, etc.). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as search_tasks_tool or note_statistics_fs_tool.

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