get_file_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (file counts by extension, total files, directory counts) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether subdirectories are included recursively, how hidden files are handled, or any side effects, which is a notable gap even for a read-only stats tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause contributes meaning. There is no wasted filler or redundant detail.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (file counts by extension, total files, directory counts). It could mention whether the stats are recursive or if there are edge cases, but it is largely complete for typical use.

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 100%: the 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Directory path to analyze. Leave empty for entire vault.'). The description adds minimal extra value by restating that it can operate on the whole vault or a specific directory, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get statistics') and resource ('files in the vault or a specific directory'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or get_vault_structure by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than raw listings.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need file statistics such as counts by extension), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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