mcp_get_media_stats

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It hints at a read-only operation but does not confirm safety, describe potential performance impact, or explain what 'statistics' entails (e.g., format, caching, or side effects). This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and output, with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 is largely adequate for a simple stats retrieval. However, it could be improved by specifying the structure of the returned statistics (e.g., object with counts and size). Still, it sufficiently covers the core functionality.

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 the description bears no burden to explain parameter meaning. The schema coverage is implicitly 100%. The description could mention that no parameters are needed, but this is not required for a parameterless tool.

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 specifies it retrieves media library statistics, including counts by type and total size. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_get_media (single item) and mcp_list_media (list of items).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used for aggregated overviews rather than individual media queries. The absence of usage context reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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