list_volumes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. '列出' implies a safe read, and the returned fields are disclosed, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior for non-multi-volume books, or what happens when book_id is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose and returned fields come first, followed by the use case.

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?

For a simple read tool with one documented optional parameter and no output schema, naming the returned fields makes the definition sufficient. Only edge-case behavior (empty book, invalid book_id) is left unaddressed.

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% and the single optional book_id already documents its default to the currently selected book. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('列出小说的分卷') and even names the returned fields (volume_id, 卷名), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby list_chapters sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition: needed for volume mapping when batch-uploading multi-volume works, which points the agent toward batch_upload as the downstream consumer. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming alternatives explicitly.

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