get_design_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns stats, implying a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not disclose any permissions, rate limits, or constraints (e.g., whether the design must be owned or public). The transparency is adequate but not enhanced.

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 extremely concise—one sentence front-loading the primary action and listing the returned stats. Every word is essential, with no filler or 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?

For a simple single-parameter stats retrieval tool, the description adequately informs about the output content. It could mention that the result is a single object with those fields, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description of the 'slug' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 retrieves detailed stats for a design, listing specific stat types (downloads, likes, comments, price). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_comments (which only returns comments) or list_my_designs (which lists designs, not 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?

The description implies usage when needing comprehensive stats for a specific design, but lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid or how this tool compares to alternatives. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' direction.

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