get_operator_voicelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the naming convention for the parameter but omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if operator is not found), or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a complete behavioral understanding.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., whether operator must exist), or additional behavioral constraints. It covers the most critical usage hint but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning by specifying that operator_name should be the in-game Chinese name (e.g., '阿米娅'), which is not present in the schema. This significantly aids correct parameter usage, though it does not cover formatting details like case sensitivity.

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 tool retrieves voice records of a specified operator (a specific resource) using the verb '获取' (retrieve/get). It distinguishes from siblings like get_operator_archives and get_operator_basic_info, which deal with other types of operator data.

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 explicitly instructs using the in-game Chinese name (e.g., '阿米娅'), providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the sibling context makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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