Project Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about what specific statistics are retrieved (e.g., 'last pipeline status', 'language breakdown'), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs (though schema covers credentials), or response format details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists all relevant statistics without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get aggregate project statistics') followed by specific examples. Every element earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what statistics are returned, which addresses the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., whether all statistics are always available) or link to sibling tools for related actions.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (projectPath and userCredentials). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain projectPath format or credential usage scenarios). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'aggregate project statistics', with specific examples of what statistics are included (open issues/MRs, star/fork counts, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_project (likely returns basic project info) or get_issues/get_merge_requests (individual resources rather than aggregates).

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 by listing the specific statistics it returns, suggesting it should be used when those aggregate metrics are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project (which might return different project details) or when not to use it (e.g., for individual issue details). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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