get_chapter_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that numbers must be referenced from return values, that data keys can be used as placeholders in generate_word_report with {{章节.键[.年份|.total]}} syntax, and that numbers are injected by the system. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions, or error behavior, but it provides substantial operational context for a read-only data retrieval 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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and then packed with essential usage rules. Some parenthetical details and the placeholder syntax could be slightly clearer, but every sentence adds actionable 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?

Given six parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the data structure, the alternative input methods, the downstream integration, and the placeholder contract thoroughly. An agent has enough to invoke correctly and use the output.

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 already 100%, but the description adds non-obvious semantics: chapter=list means get directory, p_id requires a pure numeric E投 project ID, reports can be a fast_calc_reports tables package or a subset, and stage defaults to scheme_stage. It explains the three-way exclusivity (p_id, reports, files) beyond the schema.

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: return structured data plus writing points per chapter for feasibility (8 chapters) or econ (6 chapters) reports. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_skill_instructions for templates and generate_word_report downstream.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use chapter=list to see the directory, when to use p_id+stage vs reports, and that fast_calc_reports should be used first if no platform project number exists. It also directs to get_skill_instructions before template work, covering alternatives and conditions.

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