Retrieves up to 20 chapter texts from the local novel library and returns available content plus missing IDs and batch_id; optionally queues missing downloads without waiting.
优先读取本地正文；缺失时仅在download_missing:true时创建或复用下载批次，立即返回已有正文、缺失ID和batch_id，不阻塞等待下载。最多20章。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | ||
| item_ids | Yes | ||
| max_total_chars | No | ||
| download_missing | No | ||
| max_chars_per_chapter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully explains why: with download_missing it may create or reuse a download batch, and it returns immediately rather than waiting. That is real added context. It still omits what happens to chapters that are missing (are they absent from the response or listed as missing IDs?), error/auth behavior, and any side effect of reusing an existing batch.
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 tight statement that front-loads the most important rule (local content first) before the conditional download behavior. It is dense and clause-heavy but every clause carries information; no filler.
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 5-parameter, non-read-only, open-world tool with no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape (existing 正文, missing IDs, batch_id) and the non-blocking contract. It leaves truncation semantics (max_total_chars / max_chars_per_chapter) and failure behavior unexplained, which matters given the mutation-capable path.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only explains download_missing and echoes the 20-chapter cap that is already encoded as maxItems:20. book_id, max_total_chars, and max_chars_per_chapter (default 0, meaning unclear) get no explanation at all, so a third of 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource (read chapter 正文 for a set of item_ids), plus the key differentiator that it never blocks waiting for downloads. It does not name any sibling (e.g. tnd_read_downloaded_chapters, tnd_check_chapters, tnd_start_chapter_download) to sharpen the boundary, but the local-first/non-blocking framing is clear enough to distinguish it.
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 states the conditional rule for the risky path: only create or reuse a batch when download_missing:true, otherwise read local content only. That implies the agent should follow up with batch-status/polling tools rather than expect the content inline, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.