Checks whether local chapter text for up to 50 chapter IDs is valid, without network access or downloading, so you can confirm saved chapters before reading or processing them.
仅检查本地章节正文是否有效，不联网、不下载、不返回正文；最多50个item_ids。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | ||
| item_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the offline nature and adds that no content is returned, which is useful, but says nothing about what happens on invalid chapters, error reporting, or whether missing items count as failures.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core scope first and the three exclusions tight behind it, then the item count cap. No filler and no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description should indicate what a validation check returns (per-item validity flags, error list, counts). It only tells the agent what is not returned ('不返回正文'), leaving the actual result shape unspecified for a tool whose entire purpose is producing a validation verdict.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only restates '最多50个item_ids' — a limit already encoded as maxItems: 50 in the schema. book_id is never explained (book identity format, whether it must match the local library), and the string-id format for item_ids is left entirely to 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+resource combination (check whether local chapter body content is valid) and immediately delimits it against the read/download siblings via '不联网、不下载、不返回正文'. It stops short of 5 because it never defines what 'valid' actually means, so the agent knows the scope but not the exact check being performed.
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?
'仅检查本地章节正文' plus the three negations effectively communicate when this tool applies (local-only validation, no fetching). However, no sibling alternative is named, so an agent weighing this against tnd_get_chapters or tnd_list_downloaded_chapters gets no explicit routing signal, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.