scan_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default behavior (concise list) and the verbose option, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if there are no stories. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then explains the parameter behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the default behavior. It's complete for this level of complexity. It could mention return format details, but with no output schema and a simple list, the description is sufficient.

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% (the verbose parameter is fully described in the schema). The description adds a bit of context by explaining the default (false) and the trade-off (saving tokens), which is slightly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 tool lists all stories with metadata (title/type/status/word count/series), using a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('所有故事'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_chapter and write_chapter by focusing on story-level listing, and from stats by specifying metadata fields.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (to list stories and metadata) and mentions the default behavior (concise list to save tokens) with an option for full details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context (read_chapter, write_chapter) makes the distinction implicit.

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