Show output directory stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's use of 'Show' is consistent with that. It adds useful scoping around output directory and recently generated images, but it does not disclose output format, potential cost, or hidden scanning behavior. Given the read-only annotation, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It communicates the verb, resource, and scope efficiently.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only stats tool, the description adequately states what the tool operates on and what it returns at a high level. No output schema exists, so 'statistics' is somewhat vague, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can select and invoke it correctly without more detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to explain. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('statistics about the output directory and recently generated images'). It is clearly distinct from generate_image and upload_file, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from fetch_generation or maintenance.

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 implies a monitoring use case for checking output directory stats, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Sibling tools like fetch_generation are not referenced as alternatives, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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