tnd_get_chapter_times

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — that timestamps come back in both UTC and Beijing time — which helps an agent interpret results. However, it omits pagination behavior (limit defaults to 100, capped at 500), whether the result is a complete or paged list, and any ordering of chapters, all of which matter for a list 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key return detail lead. The trailing time-zone clause is slightly redundant in phrasing (时间同时返回) but still earns its place by clarifying output format.

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 a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and in what time format, which is the critical unknown. It falls short on pagination and the optional item_id filter, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone how to page through a large catalog.

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 only 50%: book_id and item_id are documented, but limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions pagination, the per-chapter item_id filter, or the maximum page size, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (番茄章节目录 + 每章首次发布时间/firstPassTime), and specifies the timestamp format returned. This lets an agent distinguish it from write/download siblings, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related catalog siblings such as tnd_get_chapters, tnd_check_chapters, or tnd_list_downloaded_chapters.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or named alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set of four other chapter-listing tools. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right catalog call versus tnd_get_chapters or tnd_check_chapters.

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