get_discovery_stats

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. 'Get' implies read-only, and adding 'about discovered tools and ingested repositories' clarifies the scope. However, it does not state side effects (if any), whether it triggers a refresh, or the format of the statistics returned. This is minimal but not misleading, scoring at the viable baseline.

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 that states the verb and resource directly. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (zero params, no output schema), the description covers the basic function but lacks details about the return structure or what specific statistics are included. This is adequate for a stats retrieval but leaves some ambiguity about the output shape. It is not as complete as richer descriptions that specify return fields or aggregation level.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning nonexistent parameters, and no additional parameter information is needed. The empty schema fully covers this dimension.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'statistics about discovered tools and ingested repositories.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_tools and ingest_repo, which are action-oriented. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.

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. It does not mention that it should be called after discovery/ingestion, nor does it exclude any specific use cases. The description is purely declarative with no contextual 'when to use' advice.

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