collection_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates read-only aggregation by saying 'Return' and discloses the count categories, but it does not mention data freshness, permission requirements, or whether counts are scoped globally or per user. For a zero-parameter stats tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the essential output categories without filler. Every element earns its place.

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 no-input aggregation tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it identifies the operation, the collections involved, and the shape of the result. No additional invocation details are needed.

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?

The tool accepts no parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the agent to configure.

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 a specific operation ('Return collection counts') and enumerates the exact count families returned (recipe_count, menu_count, pantry_* counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling recipe CRUD/search tools, which operate on recipe records rather than aggregate 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance, but the description implies the tool is for aggregate counts rather than listing/searching recipes. An agent can infer that if it needs count summaries, this is the tool; if it needs individual records, list_recipes or search_recipes would be used.

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