dms_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns statistics (read operation), which is appropriate, but does not mention performance implications, data freshness, or whether counts are real-time or cached. The description is adequate for a read-only inventory summary tool, but could add more behavioral details.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return DMS inventory statistics') and then lists the specific data points returned. Every element is relevant, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description completely explains the tool's return value. The list of statistics (files/folders, sources, document types, BD laws) is comprehensive for an inventory overview tool. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already conveys no inputs are needed. The description adds value by explaining what the returned statistics include, which is the complete set of aggregate data the tool produces, effectively compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 DMS inventory statistics and enumerates specific categories (total files/folders, counts by source and document type, registered sources, BD laws count). This provides a precise, distinctive purpose compared to sibling tools like dms_search or dms_details, which focus on searching or fetching individual records.

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 the tool provides aggregate statistics for an overview, distinguishing it from detail-oriented siblings, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like dms_legal_kpi. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the 'total' qualifier suggests it covers all sources, which is helpful context.

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