get_map_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the default behavior (description not returned to save tokens) and the truncation limit (500 characters), plus the inclusion of phase2 results. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but the 'query' verb implies a read-only operation.

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 concise and well-structured: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then clarify the key parameter behavior. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what the tool does, the specific phase2 result it includes, and the critical default/optional behavior. It lacks edge-case context like not-found behavior or prerequisites, but the overall completeness is sufficient for this query tool.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (workshop_id and include_description) with 100% coverage. The description adds the rationale for the default ('省 token' - save tokens) and reiterates the truncation behavior, but this is largely redundant with the schema. No significant additional parameter semantics are provided.

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's purpose: '查询单张地图的完整详情' (query complete details of a single map), and adds a specific distinguishing feature: '包含 phase2 战役判定结果' (including phase2 campaign determination result). This differentiates it from sibling list/search tools by focusing on singular detail retrieval with a unique data point.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by describing a single-map detail query, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools. The only usage-related guidance is about the include_description parameter, which is more about parameter semantics than tool selection.

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