store_stats

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: counts only live records, excludes soft-deleted records, returns results largest-first, includes store-wide totals, and respects store_scope scoping. These are exactly the kinds of behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value: scope, companion relationship, soft-delete behavior, ordering, totals, and a concrete use case. Nothing is redundant.

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 simple read-only stats tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return contents, ordering, scoping, and a practical use case. The only notable gap is the unexplained app_id parameter, but overall the tool is well specified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single app_id parameter, but it never mentions it. The parameter is named app_id and required, yet the description only talks about store_scope and collections, leaving the agent to infer how app_id relates to the call. It is not misleading, but it provides no parameter guidance.

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 states a specific action and resource: it returns per-collection live-record counts, explicitly framed as the numeric companion to store_collections. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling list tool.

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 gives clear context: it is the numeric counterpart to store_collections and is useful for spotting polluted or runaway collections before purging. It implies when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond store_collections.

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