read_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the operation is a read and describes parameters, but does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or behavior for invalid input. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus bullet-like argument descriptions. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundancy or fluff.

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 with two parameters and an output schema exists. The description adequately covers what the tool does, the required and optional parameters, and hints at integration with list_stories. No additional context needed for the given complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of include_narration (whether to include narration/scene descriptions) and provides an example and source for story_key. Adds significant value beyond the schema's type info.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('读取' meaning read) and resource ('单章剧情的完整台词' meaning complete dialogue of a single story chapter). It distinguishes from siblings like list_stories (listing) and read_activity (reading activity data) by focusing specifically on dialogue content.

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 a concrete example for story_key and notes it can be obtained from list_stories, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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