get_tasks_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 states what the tool does (get statistics) but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the specific statistics it retrieves. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Obtiene estadísticas') and includes no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the return values, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple read operation.

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 with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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: 'Obtiene estadísticas de las tareas' (Gets task statistics) with specific metrics: 'total, completadas, pendientes' (total, completed, pending). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (single task) and 'list_tasks' (list of tasks) by focusing on aggregated statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the text, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'list_tasks' for summary data or 'get_task' for detailed information, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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