get_novel_stats

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

The description provides clear behavioral context: it returns book-level stats (read_count, word count, serialization status) and per-chapter details. It also explains the default book_id behavior. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could mention that the tool is read-only and non-destructive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the tool's purpose and output, the second explains parameter defaults. There is no redundant or superfluous 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output (book-level + chapter details), parameter defaults, and default behavior when book_id is omitted. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that chapter_detail defaults to true and that book_id defaults to the currently selected novel, which is not inferable from the schema alone. It also provides context on the output fields, enhancing understanding.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '小说阅读数据' (novel reading stats), and distinguishes the output into book-level overview and chapter details. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_novels or list_chapters, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to get reading stats) and explains the default behavior when book_id is not provided. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using list_chapters for chapter-only info.

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