get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns a summary of counts (total tasks, done today, pending, overdue), which is transparent for a read-only aggregation tool. No side effects or additional behavior is needed given the simplicity.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key outputs, and the second provides use-case guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information. It provides enough context for the agent to know when to use it versus siblings. However, it could more precisely define terms like 'done today' (e.g., tasks completed today vs. created today).

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 schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds value by explaining the nature of the output without needing to detail any inputs. This exceeds the baseline requirement.

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 'summary of where things stand', listing specific data points (total tasks, done today, pending, overdue). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_todos (which lists individual tasks) and get_pending_today (which focuses on pending tasks only).

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for 'an end-of-day check-in or when the user wants the big picture,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, though the purpose differentiation is implied.

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