arquimedes_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Takes no arguments' and a breakdown of what the summary contains (counts by dataset, category, competition, and solution kind), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning response size or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the resource scope comes first, then the routing guidance. Every clause 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the contents of the return payload and the sequencing relative to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and the description correctly states 'Takes no arguments', leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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?

Specific verb ('Summarize') plus a precisely scoped resource ('what the Arquimedes math problem database holds'), with concrete content listed: problem counts by dataset/category/competition and written-solution counts by kind. It is immediately distinguishable from the search/get/sample siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to 'Call it first' and names the reason (to learn which category, dataset, and competition values exist) before filtering arquimedes_search_problems or arquimedes_sample_problems. This is a textbook when-to-use plus named alternatives.

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