scan_stories

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about the default concise response and verbose full-detail behavior. It also clarifies that the tool returns all stories, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or potential large-result behavior, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's core purpose first and then explains the optional parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of the schema or annotations and no unnecessary filler.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (concise list vs. full metadata) and the metadata fields. It could be more explicit about what the concise list contains or how large result sets are handled, but for this complexity level it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already fully documents the verbose parameter, including its default value and meaning (100% schema coverage). The description adds the token-saving rationale but no additional syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('所有故事'), and enumerates the metadata fields returned (标题/类型/状态/字数/系列). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like read_chapter, write_chapter, and create_story, which operate on individual stories rather than listing all stories.

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 gives clear guidance on choosing between the default concise output and verbose=true to save tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the intended usage context is 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.