chuangJianZhangJie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it says the tool creates a new chapter and records content, it does not mention permissions required, whether it overwrites existing chapters, what happens on duplicate chapter numbers, or what the response looks like. The lengthy writing guidelines are domain content requirements, not operational behavior of the tool itself.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description then expands into eight detailed writing rules plus a file reference, making it quite long for a tool definition. While each rule is specific and actionable, much of this content could be a separate writing prompt rather than embedded in the tool description.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides important context: it clarifies the tool's role, lists a critical prerequisite, and includes detailed writing standards that are essential for correct invocation. It falls short only in not describing the tool's operational behavior or expected return, but for a creative writing assistant, the guidance is largely complete.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add any syntax, format, or constraint details for individual parameters (e.g., valid ranges for zhangJieHao, max length for neiRong). With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: '创建新章节，记录章节内容和大纲' (create a new chapter, record chapter content and outline). This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like huoQuZhangJie and lieJuZhangJie. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: '写新章节前必须先用huoQuZhangJie读取前3章内容' (before writing a new chapter, must first use huoQuZhangJie to read the previous 3 chapters). It also gives strict adherence rules to an outline and references a writing standard file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other creation tools like chuangJianRenWu.

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