Lists chapter titles and item IDs for a downloaded book without returning chapter text; use it to inspect or select chapters by book ID with pagination.
列出某本已下载书籍的章节标题和 item_id，不返回正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| book_id | Yes | 数字书籍 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: body text is not returned. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite the presence of limit/offset, whether results are local-only or require network access, ordering of chapters, or what happens for a book with no downloaded chapters.
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 purpose front-loaded and the key exclusion (不返回正文) appended, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects omitted content as much as disciplined editing.
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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level but leaves pagination semantics and output shape unaddressed. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but an agent would need to inspect the schema to use limit/offset correctly.
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 33% – just book_id ('数字书籍 ID') is documented, while limit and offset have bounds and defaults but no semantic explanation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify units, pagination interaction, or whether book_id accepts the numeric ID shown elsewhere.
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 uses a specific verb (列出/list) plus a clearly bounded resource: chapter titles and item_id for one already-downloaded book. It also states what is NOT returned (正文/body text), which separates it from read-oriented siblings such as tnd_read_downloaded_chapters. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied 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?
The phrase 已下载书籍 (already-downloaded book) implies the precondition that the book must be downloaded and hints that this is a listing/index step rather than a reading step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to tnd_read_downloaded_chapters or tnd_get_chapters as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.