get_project_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only overview ('Get', 'statistical overview') and lists the output contents. However, it does not explicitly disclose potential limitations like performance implications, data freshness, or that no permanent changes are made. While read-only is self-evident from the verb, a more explicit note about side effects or permissions would strengthen transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key deliverables, then closes with a guidance sentence. Every phrase earns its place—no filler, no repetition of schema content, and no extraneous details.

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 is a simple statistical overview with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates both input and expected output. It covers the high-level contents and even provides a usage sequence relative to sibling tools. The only minor gap is not mentioning error scenarios or the exact format of the top-10 lists, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (project_id) with a useful description including optionality and cross-reference to list_projects. The tool description itself adds no further parameter detail, but since the schema already fully explains the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('high-level statistical overview of your FeaturePulse project'). It enumerates exactly what is included (total requests, votes, MRR grouped by status/priority, top-10 lists), making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools which operate on individual 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before diving into individual requests to understand the overall landscape.' This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'before diving into individual requests' imply a contrast with detailed-level tools like list_feature_requests, which is sufficient.

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