阅读概况

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the internal sequence of API calls, the sort order by readUpdateTime, the ebook-only scope, and exact user-facing responses for empty-shelf and failure cases. This gives the agent a rich, accurate model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then internal behavior, then scope constraints, then edge-case responses. Every sentence contributes operational knowledge, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation information.

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 single-parameter orchestrating tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is aggregated, how the limit is used, which resources are excluded, and how failures/empty states are handled. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and set expectations.

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 already describes recent_book_limit with a default and purpose, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that this limit controls how many ebooks get progress queries, sorted by readUpdateTime, and that its default avoids excessive calls on large shelves—value beyond the schema text.

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 ('一次性汇总用户阅读概况'), and enumerates the exact components: shelf overview, recent N ebook progress, and notes overview. It also distinguishes itself from sibling per-resource tools like get_shelf, get_reading_progress, and list_notebooks by framing itself as the aggregate profile workflow.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is the one-shot 'profile.md' workflow for a complete reading overview, which implies it should be chosen over calling individual sibling tools separately. It also gives a scoping rule (only ebooks in books[], not albums), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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