dictionary_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read-only behavior (shows count) but does not disclose output format (e.g., integer, string), potential caching, or whether the count reflects only the currently loaded dictionary. For a simple stat tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded, and concise. Every word is relevant. It could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., mentioning it returns a number), but for a tool with no parameters, it is appropriately sized.

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 (0 parameters, no complex logic), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the source (official dictionary). Without an output schema, the agent might infer the return type, but additional clarity on the output format would improve completeness. Still, for a straightforward stat tool, it suffices.

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 input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the stat is for the 'official dictionary' and that it shows a count. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets expectations.

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 'Mostra quantos sinais existem no dicionário oficial carregado' (Shows how many signs exist in the loaded official dictionary). It specifies the verb (shows) and the resource (count of signs in the official dictionary), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on translation, glossing, or content auditing.

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. With multiple sibling tools like lookup_sign, text_to_gloss, and validate_gloss, the description should clarify that this is for obtaining a rapid statistic, not for detailed lookups or validation. It gives no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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