files_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only lists what counters are available but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, performance implications, or side effects.

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—one short sentence. While concise, it omits critical information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified and not well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output structure. It leaves the agent guessing what 'file_nodes', 'leaves', 'embed coverage', and 'by-filetype' mean and how the parameters affect results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the two parameters (corpus, database) or explain their purpose. The description adds no value beyond the raw 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 'Corpus-level counters: file_nodes, leaves, embed coverage, by-filetype' clearly identifies the tool's function as providing aggregated statistics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like files_search and files_get by focusing on counters rather than file retrieval or search.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other corpus-related tools.

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