get_project_stats

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by noting session default behavior ('Uses default session if session_id not provided'). However, it does not disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, or whether stats are live or cached. The output schema covers return format, so this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and included fields, and the second adds a key behavioral note. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and one behavioral aspect. However, it lacks prerequisites, relationship to siblings, and any conditionality. This is minimally complete but leaves gaps for a fully informed selection.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains session_id's optionality and fallback to default session. It does not explain project_id beyond its schema title. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but leaves one parameter without additional context.

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 it retrieves project statistics and enumerates specific fields (total points, assigned points, completed points, velocity), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_project_issue_stats. However, it could be more explicit about scope and distinction from similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_issue_stats or get_milestone_stats. It only describes what it does and a session default behavior, leaving the agent without comparative context for selection.

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