get_project_issue_stats

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions default session behavior, but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or response format beyond 'counts'. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but behavioral details are limited.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no redundant information. Every part adds value, including the behavioral note on session.

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?

For a statistics tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and a behavioral note. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage, though a mention of read-only nature would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains session_id default, but provides no additional semantic context for project_id beyond the schema. Minimal added 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 gets issue statistics for a project, listing specific dimensions like severity, priority, status, and type. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_issues or get_project.

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 is for aggregated statistics, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus related tools like get_project_stats or list_issues. No alternative suggestions are provided.

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