novel_style_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core behavior: aggregating measurements into a whole-book profile and the scope distinction from chapter-level judgment. However, it omits behavioral traits such as the 'get' action for reading saved AI judgments and the persistence side effect of passing aiJudgment, which are represented only in 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 compact, front-loaded with the core concept, and every clause adds value — measurement content, usage trigger, and sibling exclusions. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description, combined with the thoroughly documented schema, gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool: it defines the output (whole-book style profile), lists the data dimensions, and clarifies which siblings to choose instead. It doesn't detail the precise return structure, but the description's scope and the schema's parameter guidance make this a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about the 6 measurement dimensions but does not need to explain individual parameters because the schema already documents book, root, brief, action, and aiJudgment clearly.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('风格画像报告'), states what it aggregates (6 dimensional measurements), and explicitly differentiates it from novel_style_check and novel_sentence_analysis. An agent can identify the tool's purpose and distinguish it from key siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('问这本书是什么风格时用它') and tells the agent what this tool is not for. The alternative tools are named (novel_style_check for single-chapter, novel_sentence_analysis for technique breakdown), so when-to-use versus alternatives is clear.

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