get_tool_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns 'complete metadata including input and output Schema', which implies a read-only operation and clarifies the return content. However, it does not disclose behavior for nonexistent tool names, error cases, or any side effects. The disclosure is adequate for a simple getter but remains minimal.

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 extremely concise: two lines, the first stating the primary purpose and the second detailing the return value. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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 tool with a single parameter, a true output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return value. It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete without requiring additional explanation.

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 documents the single parameter 'tool_name' with a description '工具名称'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond referencing the 'specified tool' in the first sentence. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and target: '获取指定工具的完整定义' (get the complete definition of the specified tool). This is a specific verb+resource pairing, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tools (which search) and list_tools_by_category (which list) by focusing on retrieving a single tool's full definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that this is for fetching a specific tool's metadata while search_tools is for discovering tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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