get_chapter_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses cache-first behavior and that refresh=True forces a re-fetch, which is concrete operational guidance. It omits auth/error details, but those are less critical for a read operation.

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 compact; every clause adds value: output content, caching behavior, and usage timing. Front-loaded with the primary purpose before operational details.

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 an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. The description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though 'co index' is left somewhat undefined and the relationship to sibling tools is only implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the refresh parameter's semantics (cache-first by default, refresh=True forces a new fetch), but book_id and chapter_uid are left to their self-explanatory names without additional detail.

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 action and resource: retrieving chapter plaintext plus a 'co index'. This clearly distinguishes it from TOC, shelf, and progress siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: '共读前先读这个' (read this first before co-reading). It gives clear context but does not describe exclusions or alternative tool choices.

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