da_media_get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic output. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, has rate limits, or what permissions are needed. For a data retrieval tool, asserting read-only behavior would be valuable.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and key output elements. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 lack of output schema and complexity (multiple statistics), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the scope (e.g., per repo or global) or response format. While the listed outputs give some context, more details on behavior and return structure would improve completeness.

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 is fully described (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Optional path to site folder' but that is same as schema description. No additional parameter meaning.

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 retrieves media usage statistics and lists specific returned data: total count, breakdown by type, unused media, and alt text status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like da_media_check_status (individual status) and da_media_search (search).

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. While the purpose is clear, missing context such as 'use for aggregate overviews' or 'for detailed per-item status, use da_media_check_status' would improve.

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