get_note_chapters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. '读取' implies a read-only operation, and it adds useful behavioral detail that start_ms is in milliseconds and source must be preserved, but it does not disclose permissions, empty/error behavior, pagination, or return structure.

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 two compact clauses with no wasted words. The core resource is front-loaded, followed by the timing/format detail and the sibling distinction.

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 simple read tool with one fully documented parameter, the description supplies the key output semantics—chapter_timeline, millisecond start_ms, and source preservation—along with sibling separation. It still omits some return-shape and edge-case detail, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as '笔记 ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 description states a specific verb and resource: reads the independent chapter timeline (chapter_timeline) from a note summary. It also explicitly distinguishes this from recording moments and marks, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools such as get_note_marks and get_note_timeline.

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?

It clearly says to read chapters separately from recording moments and marks and that they cannot substitute for one another, which provides explicit exclusion guidance. It does not name the exact sibling tools or state a positive use case beyond 'read chapters', so it falls short of the most explicit routing guidance.

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