galbook_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — that reading halts at a choice or ending — but never says that the call advances or mutates the reading position, whether it is safe to repeat, or that a player name / book must be resolved first. That is thin coverage for a state-advancing tool.

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 core clause is front-loaded and there is no padding beyond the redundant bilingual restatement. It is short, but the ' / 往下读' duplication earns no place because it conveys nothing new.

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?

Six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the agent gets no description of the returned text, how lines are delimited, or what happens when an ending is hit. The stopping rule is the only behavioral detail offered, which leaves the definition under-specified for a tool that drives narrative progress.

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%, so the parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the meaning of 'n' and says nothing about img, vis, book, agent, or skip_read that would supplement the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read the next n lines', plus the stopping rule 'stops at a choice or ending'. An agent can tell this advances through book content rather than making choices (galbook_choose) or inspecting state (galbook_status). It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbours like galbook_look or galbook_log.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The Chinese '往下读' simply repeats the English instruction instead of adding guidance, so an agent must infer the calling context entirely from the tool name.

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