get_statistics

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the bar is low. The description adds which content categories are summarized, but discloses nothing further about auth, scope of the library, or freshness of the counts - and the output schema already covers the return shape.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned content categories following immediately. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema defining the return values, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only real gap is disambiguation from the similar get_inventory sibling, which is not addressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level information is missing or needed.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "Get an overview of what content is stored in the WROLPi library," then names the categories counted (videos, archives, ebooks, Zim files). However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_inventory (or get_status), which likely overlaps in intent.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "overview of what content is stored" - there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_inventory/get_status as alternatives. An agent must guess which sibling to call for aggregate information.

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