Estadisticas

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention read-only status, side effects, authentication requirements, or the response shape beyond the existence of an output schema. The tool could plausibly be a fetch or a computation; the description reveals nothing.

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 fragment ('Escenas, palabras, páginas aprox., localizaciones y personajes.') – it is short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not front-load a clear operation or provide a sentence, so it is more a list of fields than a structured explanation of the tool's behavior.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context for an agent to know when to use this tool over the siblings and how the parameters (especially 'serie') affect results. For a tool that returns several statistics, the description gives no overview of the calculated fields' meaning or scope, leaving the agent poorly equipped for invocation decisions.

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 and 2 parameters (proyecto, serie). The description neither mentions these parameters nor explains their meaning or relationship to the statistics output. With the schema itself lacking descriptions, the agent receives no semantic guidance for correct parameter use, so this is a critical gap.

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 lists the content areas (scenes, words, pages, locations, characters) but lacks an explicit verb or phrase like 'gets' or 'returns' to state the operation. This conveys the tool is about statistics, so it is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not clearly distinguish itself from info_proyecto or snapshot without further inference.

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 provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus the siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only lists data categories, leaving the agent to guess whether this should be used instead of info_proyecto, leer_guion, or snapshot in a given scenario.

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