mdan_ecosystem_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-destructive aspect. The description adds the scoping detail that it counts installed components under ~/.claude and names the categories, but it does not disclose the output format, whether counts are total or grouped, or any other behavioral nuances.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the core action ('Count') and uses a parenthetical for categories. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly: it states the target location, the categories counted, and the action. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of component types, which implies the returned breakdown.

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 parameter documentation is not needed. The schema is vacuously complete, and the description's mention of counting by component type is the only semantic content that helps interpret the expected output.

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 names a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('installed Claude Code components') with a clear scope ('in ~/.claude'). It also lists the component categories (skills, agents, commands), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdan_ecosystem_read or mdan_ecosystem_catalog that likely perform richer data retrieval.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the word 'Count' and the tool name 'stats'; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over siblings such as mdan_ecosystem_read or mdan_ecosystem_search. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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