get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It only says 'Get statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what format the statistics are returned in. The phrase 'and more' leaves important behavior unspecified.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states what the tool does and lists key statistics covered. No fluff, no repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain the return shape or behavior. It only lists some statistics and says 'and more,' leaving the caller uncertain about what exactly is returned. The context is minimal for a potentially useful tool.

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% for the single parameter repository_id, and the description adds no additional parameter-related semantics. Baseline is 3 since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving statistics about a repository and specifies what those statistics include (triple counts, class counts, property counts). This is a specific verb+resource pairing, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_schema_summary tool, so it loses a point.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where get_statistics is preferred over, say, get_schema_summary or list_repositories.

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