novel_summary

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 adds only that summaries are model-generated and plugin-stored; it says nothing about whether delete is destructive, whether add overwrites existing summaries, what permissions are needed, or how failures behave — the schema's 'add=新增/覆盖' hint never surfaces in the prose.

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 short clauses plus an operation list; the resource and purpose are front-loaded and nothing is padded. It is slightly cryptic in the second clause but efficiently sized.

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?

A seven-parameter tool with a destructive delete action, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than this: it should cover mutation semantics, overwrite behavior, and return shape expectations. Those gaps are left entirely to the schema.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the action set and the '按章节' scoping but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 specific resource (章节摘要) and enumerates the operations it supports (add/update/get/list/delete), so an agent knows this is a CRUD tool over per-chapter summaries. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like novel_chapters or novel_plot, which also manage chapter-scoped content, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 a use rationale — read summaries to recall plot and avoid re-reading chapters — which implies when the tool is valuable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the overlapping cases (e.g. novel_plot or novel_chapters), so usage is only implied.

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