获取语音信息

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no mutation safety disclosure is needed. The description adds the behavioral detail that the returned voice file information can be converted to a different format (e.g., via out_format), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and appends the conversion capability. No filler words or redundant restatements of the title/name are present.

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 low-complexity read tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the core purpose and the conversion behavior. It does not spell out alternatives or return details, but the output schema is absent and the operation is simple enough that the current information is largely sufficient.

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 documentation covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small layer by explaining that the file parameter is a voice-file identifier and that output format conversion is possible, but it does not substantially extend the schema's own descriptions of file and out_format.

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?

Description uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (语音文件信息), and clarifies the operation is keyed by a voice file identifier, with optional format conversion. This clearly differentiates it from generic file/image retrieval siblings such as get_file or get_image. The generic English name is compensated by the precise Chinese title and description.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over sibling tools like get_file or get_image, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the resource type (voice file), so an agent must infer context. Thus it lacks explicit routing to alternatives.

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