tasks_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what is counted (status counts and open work per assignee), but it does not disclose scope, return format, or any limitations beyond that.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information and is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter stats 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description needs to convey what the tool returns, and it does so at a high level. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying scope or output shape, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the aggregate result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps here.

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 ('Counts') and names the aggregate dimensions ('per status' and 'open work per assignee'), so the tool's purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as tasks_overview or tasks_sprint.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like tasks_overview, tasks_list, or tasks_sprint. The intended use is implied by the stats nature of the tool, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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