stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a non-mutating reporting operation by using 'Summary' and specifying the categories returned. It does not describe response shape, freshness, computation cost, or any other behavioral nuance, but for a simple zero-parameter stats tool the basic behavior is reasonably clear.

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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the resource ('Summary of the test map') and then lists the specific included metrics. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what kind of data the summary contains. It could be more explicit about the exact output format and how it differs from sibling tools, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 identifies the resource ('the test map') and enumerates the exact contents of the summary: project/class/method counts, class-kind breakdown, endpoints, and edge tallies. It is not a tautology and leaves little doubt about what the tool does, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_endpoints or project_dependencies.

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 term 'Summary' and the focus on aggregate counts strongly imply use when a high-level overview is needed rather than detailed step/endpoint listings. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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