store_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that counts exclude soft-deleted records, that results are sorted largest first, and that store-wide totals are included. However, it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions (e.g., store_scope), or what happens if the user has no collections. For a read-oriented stats tool, this is moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. It packs useful details (soft-delete exclusion, sort order, totals) without excessive length. Each sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

This is a simple stats tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main return values (per-collection counts and totals) and a key behavioral nuance (soft-delete exclusion). However, it leaves app_id semantics and the exact meaning of 'store_scope' under-specified, and does not mention error cases or permission requirements. For a tool of this complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has only one parameter (app_id) with no description, and the description does not explain what app_id is or how it affects results. The description mentions 'store_scope' but does not clarify how app_id relates to that scope. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to define app_id 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?

The description clearly states this tool lists per-collection live-record counts scoped to the user's store_scope, and ties it to store_collections as a numeric companion. The verb is implicit but clear from context ('returns each collection with its count'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling store_collections by focusing on counts rather than listing collections. However, it does not explicitly name the action (e.g., 'lists') or fully contrast with other store_* tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'handy for spotting a polluted or runaway collection before deciding what to purge.' This implies when to use it (before purging) and relates to store_purge_collection indirectly. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like store_list, but the context of counts vs. data access is reasonably clear.

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