read_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: the URL must come from browse/search and must not be hand-crafted. However, it does not disclose other traits such as failure behavior, output shape, or any limitations, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what to pass and where it comes from. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning any edge behavior or return format, but the simplicity of the tool and the schema's coverage of lang reduce the impact of that 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?

The schema coverage is 50%: only lang is described in the schema, while url has no description. The tool description compensates for the url gap by explaining exactly where the url should come from ('url 用 browse / search 返回的那个，不要自己拼'), which adds essential semantics. The lang parameter already has a thorough schema description.

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 clearly states the action: '取某一篇的完整正文' (retrieve the full body text of a specific piece). It also differentiates from sibling tools browse and search by implying that browse/search are used to find the URL, while read_chapter fetches the full content for that URL.

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?

The description gives a clear context signal: use the URL returned by browse or search, and do not construct one yourself. This effectively routes the agent to the correct workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the instruction is unambiguous enough for the intended use case.

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