derivation_repository_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('取得') and shows the return structure, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no special permissions. For a simple stats retrieval, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a bulleted return summary, and an example. Every element earns its place, and the example illustrates the exact output format without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear output schema), the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. The example and return values make it self-contained. No gaps are apparent for the intended use case.

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 zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output structure, which is more relevant than parameters here. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with '取得推導庫統計資訊' (get derivation repository statistics), a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies what statistics are returned (total, verified, unverified, category stats) and gives an example, distinguishing it from session-level tools like derivation_status or derivation_list_sessions.

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 when one needs a repository-level overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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