get_volume_outline

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by describing the read-only nature ('获取', '概览') and the exact return content (word count and first line per page). It does not discuss rate limits or error cases, but those are secondary for a simple read-only outline 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose; the parameter-structure note is necessary given the empty schema. It earns its place, though embedding the param block in prose makes it slightly dense.

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?

Although an output schema exists and need not be described, the input contract is incomplete: the required case_id top-level parameter is never mentioned, and max_pages semantics are underspecified. An agent would need to reconcile the description with the schema and still guess at max_pages behavior.

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 schema provides no descriptions for case_id or args, so the description's definition of the args object ({volume, max_pages}) adds real value. However, it omits case_id, which is required by the schema, and does not explain the meaning of max_pages beyond its name.

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 action and output: '获取某卷的逐页概览（每页字数 + 首行内容）'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming read_pages as the subsequent detailed-reading step, so an agent can tell which tool to pick.

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 gives explicit workflow context: use it in large volumes to locate document boundaries, then decide which pages to read with read_pages. It lacks explicit conditions for when not to use alternatives, but the intended use case is clear.

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