reai_v10v11_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals this is a read-only, non-destructive statistics/overview operation by describing aggregate data output (total reports, paths, module breakdown). It does not, however, disclose response size or format, which would be minor gaps for a zero-parameter stats tool.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first states the action and output; the second provides usage framing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter statistics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the nature of its output (aggregate counts and module breakdown). It could mention the output shape or caveats, but for a simple overview tool this is close to complete.

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 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description accurately reflects that no inputs are needed by framing the tool as returning high-level aggregate statistics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('V10-V11 mapping database statistics') and enumerates what it returns (total reports, total navigation paths, module breakdown). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like reai_bre100_stats, but the V10-V11 scope differentiates it from the BRE100 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 phrase 'Good for getting an overview of the migration knowledge base' provides some usage context, implying this is a high-level overview tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus reai_search_v10v11, reai_v10v11_modules, or other siblings, leaving selection partly to inference.

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