code_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] code statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, warranting a score of 2.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, which justifies a score of 5.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of statistics), error handling, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it's not completely inadequate, resulting in a score of 3.

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 description does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'path' as 'Project path' and 'ignore' as 'Patterns to ignore.' Since the description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage (e.g., format of 'path' or examples for 'ignore'), it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('code statistics'), specifying what statistics are retrieved (lines, files, languages) and the scope (for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'file_info' or 'project_info' by focusing on code metrics, but doesn't explicitly contrast them. This earns a 4 for being clear but lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'project_info' (which might overlap) or 'list_tree' (which could list files without statistics). Without such context, the agent must infer usage, resulting in a score of 2 for no explicit guidelines.

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