列出网文赛道知识库

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral trait — 不联网 (no network/offline needed), which contrasts with the login/cookie siblings — but says nothing about output format, pagination, or size. Adequate disclosure for a read-only list tool, but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first enumerates the returned content, the second gives usage timing and alternative resources. Efficient, with no padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema knowledge tool with no annotations, the description covers content, offline behavior, when to use it, and where to find deeper material. Return format/size is unspecified, but the tool's nature makes that 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) plus the resource (主流网文赛道) and enumerates exactly what content is returned: 爽点机制、开篇要求、节奏、避坑清单、建议单章字数. This is unmistakably a knowledge-base read tool, clearly distinct from the CRUD-oriented siblings like list_books_qimao and list_chapters_qimao.

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?

Gives clear usage context: '写新书/定赛道前先看它' tells the agent when to call it (before writing a new book or choosing a track), and points to qimao://genres and qimao://golden-three-chapters for the fuller methodology. No explicit when-not condition, but the trigger is unambiguous.

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