novel_books

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states '**只读**' (read-only), which is a key behavioral trait, and describes what it returns (chapter count and total word count). It does not describe return formatting or pagination, but for a simple listing tool this is likely sufficient. The read-only note adds transparency beyond the schema.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action ('列出' all works) followed by the specific details (chapter count, total word count, and read-only note). There is no wasted text; every phrase adds value.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists works and indicates the returned fields (chapter count and total word count). It does not explain the exact format or structure of the output, but that is not critical for an agent to call it correctly. The description is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, describing 'root' as the chapter library root directory containing the novels subdirectory. The description also mentions the novels folder, but it does not add any additional semantics or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb '列出' (list) with a clear resource ('小说章节库中的全部作品', i.e., all works in the novel chapter library) and specifies the output includes chapter count and total word count. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like novel_read (which reads a specific work) or novel_chapters (which likely lists chapters within a work).

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 description conveys clear context: this tool lists all works in the library, which is a high-level overview. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., novel_chapters for a single work's chapters) or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose, which is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.

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