policy_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '统计' implies a read-only aggregation, but nothing states whether the operation is side-effect free, whether it requires authentication, or what kind of results are returned. The behavior is only weakly implied.

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 extremely short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single noun phrase provides no structured information such as output scope or intended use.

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?

Despite having an output schema and zero parameters, the description is too thin to be complete in context: the sibling list contains many policy tools, and '政策文件库统计' does not clarify what statistics are computed, over what period, or how this differs from policy_search/policy_detail. The output schema may describe return values, but the conceptual scope remains vague.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 '政策文件库统计' names the resource (policy document library) and a high-level operation (statistics), so an agent can infer the domain. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, no detail on what statistics are produced, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling policy tools like policy_search or policy_timeline.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use policy_stats versus any of the many policy-related siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names mentioned, so the agent must guess whether this tool is for summary counts, trends, or something else.

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