novel_continuity_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (contradiction candidates across four categories) which is genuinely useful, and '供修正' implies it only reports rather than edits. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether files are modified, or what happens on failure, so notable gaps remain for an un-annotated tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose (continuity audit against the settings sheet) followed by the output categories. No filler, though the compact Chinese phrasing packs several distinct ideas into one clause chain.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does explain the returned artifact type (contradiction candidates), which is the key gap-filler. But it omits whether the tool mutates anything, what the settings sheet dependency means, and how the alternate modes interact, so it is adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (ooc, book, root, chapter, outline) are already documented in the schema, including the three alternate modes. The description adds the contradiction categories but no parameter-level syntax or default behavior beyond that, so baseline 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 gives a clear verb+resource: audit continuity ('连贯性审计') by scanning the whole book against the settings sheet and emitting contradiction candidates. The listed categories (数字口径/人物缺场/别名/重复) make the scope concrete and distinguishable from siblings like novel_style_check or novel_plot. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for finding continuity contradictions 'for correction', which tells an agent the context (post-draft review). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs novel_style_check/novel_plot, no prerequisites, and no mention that the settings sheet must already exist. The three operating modes live in the schema, not the description.

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