get-journal-stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('get statistics'), implying no side effects. For a simple stats tool, this is transparent enough, though it does not mention response format or performance implications.

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, clear sentence containing all necessary information. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 no output schema, the description provides examples of the statistics returned. It is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose but could be more comprehensive about the full set of outputs or structure.

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 no parameters, so per the baseline rule, 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by listing example statistics (document count, chunks), helping the agent understand what the tool returns beyond an empty input schema.

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 it retrieves statistics about the journal database, specifically mentioning document count and chunks. This unambiguously identifies the resource and output, and it is distinct from sibling tools like add-memo (creation), rebuild-journal-index (maintenance), and search-journal (query).

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining general database statistics, but it lacks explicit when-not conditions or mentions of alternative tools. This is adequate for a straightforward tool.

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