browse

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

无注解，描述承担全部责任。明确披露只返回库中真实内容、不编造、每条带 URL、内容为历史处理而非个人建议。行为透明性良好，但未提及结果数量或分页等潜在限制。

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?

开头用「主入口」点明核心用途，随后分层说明无参数和带参数行为，最后补充使用方法和注意事项。结构清晰，但篇幅略长，部分信息（如历史处理免责声明）可简化。

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?

工具简单（2 参数，无输出 schema），描述覆盖了调用方式、参数选择逻辑、返回内容特征和边界情况。唯一缺失是返回格式的详细说明（如条目结构），但描述已暗示包含说法和 URL，基本完整。

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 覆盖率 100%，描述补充了 lang 参数的语义（中英文站内容不同、非互译），以及 group 参数需从无参数结果中选取。这些补充超越了 schema 本身，有助于 agent 正确使用。

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?

明确说明是主入口，无参数列出全部归类，带 group 列出具体说法和历史处理。动词+资源+行为都很具体，与 read_chapter 和 search 区分明显。

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?

给出了明确的使用流程：先读归类、按语义挑选最匹配的组，并举例说明字面匹配可能失败。还说明了检索不到时的处理方式。但未明确提及与 search 或 read_chapter 的替代关系，略欠完整。

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