article_stats

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states the action without any side-effect, permission, rate-limit, or data-scope information. The agent cannot determine if this is a safe read-only operation or if it requires specific context.

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, succinct Korean sentence that wastes no words. However, it under-specifies the behavior, so while concise, it sacrifices informativeness.

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 no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It provides no information about the return format, the nature of the statistics, or how this tool relates to other article tools, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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, so the input schema is fully complete. The description adds no parameter information, but the 0-param baseline of 4 applies.

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 the specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '아티클 통계' (article statistics), clearly identifying the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_articles or article_list by focusing on statistics, but it does not specify the exact type or scope of statistics.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, alternative tool references, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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