Extract high-frequency keywords from a novel or chapter, including Chinese two- and three-character phrases and English words, to analyze recurring themes and style.
统计某部作品（或单个章节）中出现频率较高的关键词：中文相邻二字/三字词组与英文词（novel_keywords 输出不含单字）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | 返回的关键词数量。默认 20。 | |
| book | Yes | 书名。 | |
| root | No | 章节库根目录。 | |
| chapter | No | 可选。只统计该章节；省略则统计全书。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output format (excludes single characters) but doesn't disclose performance characteristics, size limits for 'top', or typical output structure beyond that one exclusion.
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?
One efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and appends a useful scope exclusion. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a read-only analysis tool, but as no annotations or output schema exist, the description could better explain return shape or constraints on 'top'. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent deciding between this and other novel analysis tools.
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 all four parameters. The description adds the behavioral note that 'chapter' is optional and that omitting it covers the whole book, but this is already implied by the schema's '可选' note.
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?
Clearly states the verb (统计 frequency) and resource (关键词 in a novel or chapter), distinguishing it from siblings like novel_summary or novel_sentence_analysis. The parenthetical about not including single characters is a useful scope detail, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like novel_summary or novel_semantic_search. Usage is only implied by the description of what it counts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.