tnd_get_library

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a negative behavior (no chapter text returned), but says nothing about whether the listing is read-only, what side effects a scan has, or what the response looks like. Fully read-only behavior is implied by 列出, not stated.

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 compact sentence with the subject (listing local files/subdirectories) front-loaded and the exclusion clause appended. Nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are schema-documented, and no output schema exists, so the description should ideally sketch the return shape (e.g., names vs. full paths, whether sizes/dates are included). Stating only that chapter text is excluded leaves the listing output format undefined.

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 100%, so all three parameters (name, path, start) are already documented in the schema, including the defaults. The description adds no extra semantics such as filter matching rules or what a start-triggered rescan implies. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb (列出) and resource (下载器保存目录中的本地文件或子目录), and adds a negative scope (不会返回章节正文) that separates it from the read_chapter siblings. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling tnd_list_downloaded_chapters, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'does not return chapter body' clause implicitly routes content-reading tasks to the read_downloaded_chapter tools and positions this as a browsing tool. The agent can infer the right context, but nothing is stated about prerequisites or ordering (e.g., using this before a read call).

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