get_deck_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 does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the deck name is invalid, what the returned statistics contain, or any permission requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 of eight words with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the information the other dimensions flag as missing.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it does not explain what the statistics are or how they are shaped. An agent can invoke it but cannot predict the response, which is inadequate given the complete absence of structured context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'deckName' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or case-sensitivity hints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 has a clear verb (get) and resource (statistics for a deck), so an agent can tell it is a read operation about one deck. However, 'statistics' is left undefined – it never says what metrics are returned (counts, due cards, retention, etc.) – and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_decks or get_cards_for_review.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_decks or get_cards_for_review, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the deck must exist). The description states what it does but not when to reach for it.

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