Get Stats Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully enumerates the specific aggregates returned, but adds nothing about scope, refresh/freshness of the counts, or cost relative to listing tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the returned metrics immediately after the colon. No filler or restated title content.

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?

With no inputs, an output schema present, and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it. The only omission is guidance on when this aggregate is preferable to the sibling list tools.

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 takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies; the metric list in the description loosely maps to the output schema rather than inputs.

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 verb ("Get") and resource ("dashboard stats") and enumerates the metrics returned (total feeds, unread count, entries per category). It is unambiguous about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly note that it is the only stats/aggregate tool among the sibling listing tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing away from siblings such as list_feeds_tool or list_entries_tool. The agent must infer that this is a cheap aggregate summary versus making multiple list calls.

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