code_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. It does transparently disclose the cost ('$0.001 USDC via x402'), which is a behavioral trait not in the schema. However, it fails to disclose what the tool actually does on execution, whether it's read-only, or any side effects, leaving critical behavioral aspects unknown.

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?

One sentence is appropriately short, but it contains mostly redundant information ('code stats — Other Utilities tool') and only one useful fact about cost. Since front-loading is absent and the sentence doesn't earn its place beyond the cost note, it's under-specified rather than concise.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter details, and a generic category label, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool effectively. Given the large sibling set and complete lack of behavioral or usage context, this is far below minimum viability.

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 defines a single generic 'params' object with only 'Tool parameters as JSON object' as its description, which provides no meaningful semantics about the actual tool parameters. The description adds no information about keys, types, or expected input, and with nested objects present, the real parameters remain completely undocumented.

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 merely repeats the name 'code stats' and categorizes it as an 'Other Utilities tool,' providing no verb or resource that states what the tool does. It doesn't distinguish it from siblings like code_complexity or text_stats, and is essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 250 sibling tools, the description offers no context for when to select code_stats instead of other utilities, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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