get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get statistics') and implies no side effects. The examples of returned data (notes, blocks, model) provide transparency about the output, though it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe, but the phrasing is sufficient for a simple 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and provides concrete examples of what is included. There is no redundant or extraneous information; every word adds value.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (total notes, blocks, embedding model, etc.). It is complete enough for a basic stats tool, though the 'etc.' could be more explicit. No additional context about limitations or setup is required for such a straightforward operation.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter info because there are none to describe.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about the Smart Connections knowledge base', providing specific examples (total notes, blocks, embedding model). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_similar_notes and get_connection_graph, which focus on specific queries or graphs rather than general stats.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for retrieving overall knowledge base statistics, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given. It relies on the user inferring usage from the purpose.

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