Show output directory stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds some context by specifying 'statistics' and 'recently generated images,' which hints at the tool's scope and output type. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance characteristics, data freshness, or error handling, so it only adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 front-loads the key information: 'Show statistics about the output directory and recently generated images.' It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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, read-only operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or schema to fill gaps, it meets basic needs but could be more informative for agent usage.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given because the tool has no parameters, and the description doesn't attempt to compensate unnecessarily, maintaining clarity.

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 with 'Show statistics about the output directory and recently generated images,' which includes a specific verb ('Show') and resources ('output directory,' 'recently generated images'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'maintenance,' which might also involve directory operations, so it doesn't reach 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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for monitoring purposes, debugging, or how it relates to siblings like 'generate_image' or 'upload_file.' This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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