get_note_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns: active note count, storage bytes, pinned count, and a daily created-at histogram. It does not mention edge cases like how 'active' is defined or whether any filtering applies, but the 'get/stats' framing communicates a non-mutating aggregation operation.

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. It opens with 'Aggregate stats' to immediately orient the agent, then lists each returned metric in a compact, scannable structure with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names all major result categories. It leaves minor ambiguity about the exact definition of 'active' and the time range of the histogram, but these are likely covered by the structured output schema and do not block correct tool selection.

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 input schema imposes no burden. The description appropriately focuses on the nature of the computed statistics rather than argument details, which is the correct emphasis for a zero-parameter endpoint.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: aggregating note statistics. It enumerates exact metrics (total active notes, storage bytes, pinned-note count, created-at histogram), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes or get_note that handle individual records.

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 phrase 'Aggregate stats' implies it is for high-level overviews, but the description does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use criteria, so usage context is only implied.

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