stats

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

With no annotations, the description adequately conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. It clearly indicates what the tool returns. However, it does not mention rate limits, required permissions, or potential empty results, which would be helpful.

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 one clear, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 presence of an output schema (assumed to detail return values), the description covers the main outputs and parameter. Slight omission: it does not mention whether the deck list includes non-empty decks only or all decks.

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 description explains the sole optional parameter 'deck' as a filter to scope counts, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (which lacks descriptions). For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 provides a summary of the card box with specific components (total cards, due now, total reviews, deck list) and mentions optional scoping by deck. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like due_cards or list_cards.

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 the tool is for obtaining an overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings (e.g., 'for a quick overview, use stats; for detailed card info, use list_cards'). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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