List all chapters in a book with chapter number, title, word count, line count, and update time. Read-only; flags conflicting duplicate chapter numbers.
列出某部作品的全部章节：章号、标题、字数、行数、更新时间。只读；若存在同章号多文件，列表末尾会给出撞号分组提示。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | 书名（novels 下的子目录名）。 | |
| root | No | 章节库根目录。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral context: it explicitly marks the operation as read-only and discloses the collision-group hint behavior for duplicate chapter numbers. It does not cover ordering, error cases, or default root behavior, but it goes beyond a bare functional statement.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and output fields, the second adds the read-only and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value and 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned and highlights an important duplicate-chapter behavior. It is mostly complete for a simple listing tool, though it omits details like ordering and behavior when the book does not exist.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('book' and 'root'). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning such as formats, defaults, or prerequisites, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb ('列出') and resource ('某部作品的全部章节'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from reading/brief tools by focusing on the full chapter list, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as novel_chapter_brief or novel_read. The description implies a listing use case but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.