stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the types of statistics returned, but does not disclose details such as whether the project must exist or how auto-detection works (that resides in the schema). With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, immediately states the purpose, and is free of redundant phrasing. It is concise and well-structured.

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 optional parameter, the description lists the key output categories (file counts, task breakdown, growth monitoring) without needing an output schema. While it could mention the return format or more detail on growth monitoring, the current level is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 only parameter 'project' is fully documented in the schema with a description and auto-detection note. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema carries the full burden, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 a statistics/analytics operation for projects, with a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'content statistics for a project'. The examples of file counts, task breakdown, and growth monitoring distinguish it from sibling tools like read, write, or 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 implies this tool is for retrieving statistical summaries, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like status or project_context, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is clear but alternative guidance is missing.

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