取检测结果

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It adds a useful fact (does not deduct credits: '不扣积分') and frames it as a one-time retrieval, but it does not mention error handling, return format, or what happens if the detection is still in progress beyond the waitSeconds parameter.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then specific use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, use cases, and a cost-related behavioral note. It could mention edge cases like invalid id, but it is reasonably complete for typical usage.

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%: all three parameters (id, type, waitSeconds) have descriptions, including the enum for type and default/max for waitSeconds. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 operation: '取一次已提交检测的结果' (get the result of a submitted detection by id). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_text/check_image/check_video by focusing on result retrieval rather than submission.

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 says when to use this tool: when a previous call timed out or when reviewing historical detections. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., for new detections).

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