Get Paperless Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'collection-level' scope and no additional behavioral detail such as freshness, performance, or output caveats; it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One short declarative sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier 'collection-level' is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 parameters, read-only and idempotent annotations, and an output schema present, the description contains all the operational information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Return-value details are intentionally delegated to the output schema.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to provide parameter-level semantics.

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?

States the operation and resource directly ('Fetch collection-level statistics'), and the phrase 'collection-level' signals aggregate scope, distinguishing it from the many document/item-specific sibling tools. This is a specific and unambiguous action statement.

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 use when aggregate collection-wide statistics are needed, but it never states when not to use it, names an alternative such as get_server_info, or gives any conditions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and title.

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