get_project_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Summarize' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed metrics suggest it gathers and aggregates data without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, nor does it mention potential performance impact on large projects or handling of invalid paths. The implied non-destructive nature earns a mid score.

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 that states the action ('Summarize the project') and enumerates the key outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter behavior and return shape. It lists what is included in the summary but omits any detail about the 'path' and 'include_addons' semantics, and it does not describe the format of the returned statistics. This leaves significant gaps for a stats-gathering tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The 'path' and 'include_addons' parameters are left entirely to the schema's name and default values, which is insufficient for an agent to understand their exact meaning or effect on the results.

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 ('Summarize') and explicitly lists what the tool covers: file counts by extension, GDScript line count, scene and resource counts, autoloads, and plugins. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_info or get_filesystem_tree, which focus on different aspects of the project.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need a quantitative summary of the project. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_filesystem_tree or get_project_info instead, so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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