slc_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add behavioral context beyond the name: the GET method implies read-only, and the host scope (data1.library.sh.cn) is specified. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, whether the API key is always required, or rate limits — notable gaps for a raw/fallback tool.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose (fallback GET call) and host scope with zero filler or redundancy. Every word 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 3-param tool with a nested params object, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is minimally adequate but leaves uncertainty about return values and error handling. The intentional fallback nature partially justifies brevity, but the description does not state what kind of raw response the agent should expect.

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 already describes key and path (67% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 'GET' hint, which loosely implies params become query string parameters. The 'params' object parameter remains undocumented, and the description does not compensate for that gap or clarify what it should contain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'GET 兜底调用' for '任意 data1.library.sh.cn 路径' (any path on data1.library.sh.cn). The term '兜底' (fallback) positions it as the catch-all tool, distinguishing it from specific sibling tools like slc_endpoints and slc_api. It is clear but slightly terse, not earning a 5.

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 word '兜底' (fallback) implies this tool should be used when no more specific path-specific tool matches, giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives like slc_endpoints or slc_api named as preferred options.

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