corpus_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation but does not mention any potential side effects, performance characteristics, or conditions like caching. However, since the tool has no parameters and appears lightweight, the brief description is minimally acceptable.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and the specific breakdown of statistics. No extraneous words; it is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema (provided but not detailed here), the description covers the essential outputs: total entries, by section, by language. It does not need to elaborate further, as the output schema defines the return structure. A minor gap is the lack of mention of how to interpret the statistics, but overall sufficient.

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 parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rules, a baseline score of 4 applies when no parameters exist. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable as none are needed.

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 the tool returns statistics about the philosophy corpus, specifying the breakdown (total entries, by section, by language). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about the philosophy corpus' are specific. Among siblings (mostly search/retrieval tools), none provide corpus-level stats, so it is well-differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or any alternative tools that might be better suited for specific queries. An agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.

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