stars_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查看' implies a read-only operation and the enumerated fields tell the agent what data surfaces, but it does not state whether the call is cheap/cached, whether it triggers a sync, or whether it can be slow on large libraries — the traits that would matter for a stats endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and then its contents. No filler, no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and enumerating the headline metrics is enough for a zero-parameter aggregate tool. The one missing piece is whether the statistics reflect stored state or require a fresh sync, which affects result freshness.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the description correctly adds no param text. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('查看' / view) and resource (星标库概况 / starred library overview), then enumerates the exact contents: totals, archived count, category counts, index position. It is clearly distinct from the siblings (get/sync/reindex/search) by being an aggregated statistics read, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the overview/summary call to make before drilling into a specific star or running a search, but the description never states when to prefer it over stars_search or stars_get, nor any preconditions (e.g., whether a sync must run first for the index position to be meaningful).

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