note_statistics_fs_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It covers performance (<1 second), exclusions (word count excludes frontmatter and code blocks), and return details. It lacks mention of side effects or dependencies, but overall is transparent.

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 clear sections for purpose, analyzed elements, returned metrics, usage, and performance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description effectively lists all returned metrics (e.g., word count, tags, headings). It lacks exact structure but provides sufficient context for understanding tool output.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds examples and clarifications (e.g., relative vs absolute path, optional vault_path), but doesn't significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 comprehensive statistics about a single note' and lists detailed analysis areas, distinguishing it from vault-wide tools like vault_statistics_fs_tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, so it scores 4.

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 'When to use' section provides clear use cases such as analyzing note complexity and tracking growth. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is adequate.

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