deepseek_stats

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that results are drawn from a project-level stats file (.codex-deepseek/stats.json), providing extra context about data provenance. 'Read-only' aligns with annotations, and no contradictions exist.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose ('Read-only bridge statistics'), and each clause provides useful information without 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 the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description explains the return categories (totals, counts, success rate, duration, last 10 task metadata) sufficiently. It might be slightly more complete with mention of failure modes (e.g., missing stats file), but that is not essential for 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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'cwd' parameter is fully described in the input schema). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra semantic value.

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's function: returns bridge statistics including totals, tool counts, success rate, average duration, and last 10 task metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools (task/fix/explore/review) by being a stats aggregator, and the verb 'Returns' is specific.

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 usage for obtaining overall statistics but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names helps, but there is no direct guidance on selection.

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