stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the specific pieces of information returned (tracks, missing BPM/key, crates, db size), which adds some transparency beyond a generic 'stats' label. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it describe the output format, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, delivering all key information in a single sentence. It is concise with no filler words. However, the telegraphic style ('How many tracks...') is slightly informal and could be clearer with a leading verb, though it remains effective.

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 is the sole source of context. It lists the aggregated metrics but does not specify the output structure (e.g., whether results are returned as text, JSON, or a table) or define terms like 'crates' beyond the obvious domain context. For a simple stats tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already confirms no parameters are needed and additionalProperties is false. The description's mention of the exact metrics returned helps compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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 provides aggregate statistics: track counts, missing BPM/key counts, crate counts, and database size. It names specific resources and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tracks or track_detail by focusing on summary metrics rather than individual records. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show', the meaning is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_missing or list_tracks. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and brief description alone.

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