task_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful context by naming the underlying flowctl command and parameter mapping, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or the exact output structure beyond 'throughput and document counts'.

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 a single sentence followed by a command template, conveying the purpose and underlying wrapper without unnecessary verbosity. Every element contributes.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and command mapping. It hints at the return type (throughput and document counts), which is sufficient, though some agents may desire explicit output format details.

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 100% with both parameters well-described. The description adds a minor layer by mapping them to the command-line flags, but this is largely redundant. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 the tool provides throughput and document counts for a task, which is a specific resource and data type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_logs and task_health, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like task_status or task_health. It only mentions that it wraps a command, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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