art_get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds useful context that data is 'indexed' and includes repository sync status. It does not detail rate limits or authentication, but for a simple stats retrieval this is adequate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific summary categories. Every word contributes value, with 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly describes the expected return content. An agent knows exactly what kinds of statistics it will receive and can invoke it without additional inference.

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, and the empty schema already communicates that. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed; this aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 and resource ('Get summary statistics about indexed Atomic Red Team tests') and enumerates the concrete outputs (total tests, techniques covered, platform/executor breakdown, top techniques, sync status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like art_search or art_get_test, which focus on individual tests or search results.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need an overview of indexed Atomic Red Team test statistics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, especially among similarly named tools like get_stats or get_mitre_attack_stats, so some ambiguity remains.

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