project_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Show', which implies read-only without explicitly stating it. It does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then listing included statistics, and ending with a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description explains the parameter format, making the tool usable. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., what if the repo does not exist) and does not clarify how repo resolution works when only 'repo' is provided. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates by explaining the expected format: 'repo' or 'owner/repo'. This gives the agent the necessary guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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 purpose: 'Show development statistics for a repository' and enumerates specific statistics (language breakdown, commit counts per author, open issues/PRs). This distinguishes it from siblings like repository_summary or dependency_summary, which have different focuses.

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 when development statistics are needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings (e.g., repository_summary, dependency_summary). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usefulness for selection is moderate.

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