Story Statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It discloses the tool's output metrics but does not mention whether it performs a read-only operation, requires a prior story_init, or interacts with project state. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action (statistics) followed by concrete metrics. Every element adds value—total words, velocity, goal completion, and arc/chapter breakdowns—with no redundant or filler language.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining return content. It lists the main statistic categories and per-arc/chapter detail, but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., relative vs absolute percentages, formatting, or whether aggregates and details are combined). This is a minor gap for an otherwise straightforward tool.

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 the schema's property list is empty, so there are no parameter meanings to add. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Thống kê' (statistics) and clearly identifies the resource and scope: total word count, writing velocity, goal completion percentage, and per-arc/chapter details. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like story_analyze_pacing and story_analyze_voice, which focus on qualitative or different quantitative metrics.

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 implies usage when narrative statistics are needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like an initialized project. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer context from the metric list.

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