get_task_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates counts by status/priority and is read-only in nature ('summary'), but omits details about return format, auth, or whether subtasks are included. This is minimal but adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes useful examples without unnecessary fluff.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to invoke it with or without a filter. A bit more detail on the exact output could help, but it is not essential for a stats summary.

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 100% and the schema parameter description already explains the filter, but the description adds value by cross-referencing list_users and clarifying the optional assignee filter. This goes beyond the structured 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 clearly states the tool provides a summary of task statistics (counts by status, priority, etc.) for the workspace, distinguishing it from list_tasks or get_task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_analytics.

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?

It gives clear usage context via examples ('Give me task stats', 'Show task stats for Alice') and mentions the optional filter by assignee. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use is reasonably clear.

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