블로그 통계

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety, but the description adds valuable context: it states it scrapes all posts and may take several seconds due to multiple requests. This proactively sets expectations about performance and data-gathering behavior, which annotations do not convey.

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 three concise sentences: it states the core function, the deliverables, and the performance caveat. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (aggregation over all posts), the description sufficiently covers what it computes and what it returns (distributions, rankings). It also notes latency behavior. With no output schema, the description gives enough detail for an agent to understand the expected result, though it could mention edge cases like empty user accounts, but that is minor given other structured fields.

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%, with clear descriptions for top, username, and max_pages. The description adds context about the tool's overall function but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 it aggregates views, likes, and comments for a user's posts, and provides year/tag distributions and top post rankings. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like velog_list_posts or velog_trending_posts, which list or rank posts differently.

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 explains that this tool is needed because the stats screen does not exist on Velog, implying it should be used when such aggregated stats are required. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but it gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, such as when users need computed statistics rather than raw lists.

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