Compare a chapter's style fingerprint (sentence patterns, length, emotion) with other chapters to output similarity scores and a deviation checklist, confirming style consistency.
风格自检：对比某章节与全书其他章节的风格指纹（句式分布/句长/情绪），输出相似度与偏差清单。【问「我这一章写得像不像全书」时用它】——要可执行的改稿待办请接着用 novel_fix_plan，要全书风格画像用 novel_style_report，要看写作手法用 novel_sentence_analysis。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | 书名。 | |
| root | No | 章节库根目录。 | |
| chapter | Yes | 要检查的章节（章号/文件名/标题）。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the comparison methodology (style fingerprints against other chapters), the dimensions (句式分布/句长/情绪), and the output form (similarity and deviation list). It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or error behaviors, but the analysis framing ('自检', '对比', '输出') makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.
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 delivers the core purpose, then uses a dash to add the trigger phrasing and sibling routing. Every clause contributes: what it compares, how, what it outputs, and when to use it.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only says the output is a 'similarity and deviation list' without detailing its structure or interpretation. However, for a moderate-complexity analysis tool with fully documented parameters and clear sibling routing, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('对比') and resource ('某章节与全书其他章节的风格指纹'), names the output ('相似度与偏差清单'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from novel_fix_plan, novel_style_report, and novel_sentence_analysis. An agent can clearly understand what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.
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?
It provides an explicit trigger question ('我这一章写得像不像全书') and names three alternatives with their specific use cases ('可执行的改稿待办', '全书风格画像', '写作手法'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.