Index statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something the annotations do not: the shape of the result (node and edge totals plus per-kind breakdowns), which matters especially since there is no output schema. It omits any cost/latency hint for large indexes, keeping it below 5.

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 fragment that names the resource and the payload with no filler; every clause carries information. It is appropriately minimal for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and clear annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to anticipate the return content despite the absence of an output schema. The main missing piece is context about when an index exists or how expensive the stats call is.

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?

There is a single parameter (db_path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific resource (an index) and a specific output (node and edge totals with per-kind breakdowns), so an agent can immediately tell this is the counting/summary tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like codetopo_index or codetopo_describe_schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g. that an index must already be built), and no mention of alternatives among the dozen sibling codetopo tools. Usage is only inferable from the noun 'index' and the word 'totals'.

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