User Stat Tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the query action without detailing response format, authentication needs, rate limits, or limitations (e.g., public users only). While read-only behavior is implied, the description does not explicitly address it.

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 concise Korean sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The core purpose is clear, but the description lacks details on the return format (e.g., tag-count pairs) and error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about what the user will see, though the intent is inferable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'handle' parameter, which is well-documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the semantics.

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 states the tool's function: querying the number of problems solved by a user, grouped by algorithm tag. The verb '조회합니다' and resource '알고리즘 태그 별로' make the purpose specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like user-stat or list-tag.

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 context (when tag-wise solved counts are needed) but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's handle default.

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