cards_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only counting operation but says nothing about permissions, cost, freshness, or how results are scoped, leaving behavior largely undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with the category tag first and no wasteful filler. It is compact, though the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than trimming 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of meaning for the return shape, yet terms like 'the keeping', 'shelf', and 'surface' are never explained. It is minimally adequate but should specify what the counts represent.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description does nothing to detract from that.

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 verb 'Counts' and the dimensions 'total, by shelf, by surface' give a rough sense of an aggregate/statistics tool for cards, and the [FIND · internal] tag signals a read-oriented lookup. However, 'over the keeping' is cryptic phrasing that doesn't clearly name the resource (cards) nor distinguish this from siblings like card_get or cards_browse.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling card tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The [FIND · internal] tag implies a lookup category but gives no actionable selection guidance.

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