作品数据统计

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that this is a read-only HTTP call requiring no browser session, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, date-range defaults, or error behavior for an unspecified/private book_id.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action, that packs scope semantics and the read-only/no-browser caveat without a wasted clause.

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?

For a statistics tool with no output schema, the description compensates by noting that field names follow the platform's actual response and pointing to the qimao://publish-rules resource for metric definitions. It stops short of describing the response shape or date-range behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the terse schema enum by explaining what each scope value actually returns (overview, daily trend, or both). start_date/end_date are left entirely to the schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (读取某本书的数据统计) and enumerates the three modes it can return. An agent can tell it apart from list/create/update siblings, but the description does not differentiate it from the overlapping get_stats or get_book_income_qimao tools, which also return G七猫 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?

The scope enumeration (detail vs trend vs all) implicitly guides mode selection, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_stats or get_book_income_qimao, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., must be logged in or have book access). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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