task_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the categories of metrics returned, but it does not explain return format, freshness, auth requirements, or other behavioral details. This is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure, matching a 3 when annotations carry the safety profile.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every item in the list earns its place by specifying the readout contents.

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 zero-parameter, read-only stats tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient because it lists the key metrics. However, it leaves minor gaps such as what 'resource pressure' means or whether values are real-time, so it is not fully complete.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument stats tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource categories returned: task counts, active workers, configured capacity, and resource pressure. It clearly distinguishes itself as an aggregate stats tool rather than a per-task status tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like task_status, task_list, or resource_status.

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 task_status, task_list, resource_status, or any other sibling, nor does it give any conditions or exclusions for use.

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