read_doc

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

描述说明返回结果是完整 Markdown 内容且包含代码示例，但未额外披露只读性、权限要求或失败情况。由于无注释，描述承担披露责任，虽然基本行为已明确，但缺乏更深入的行为说明（如是否缓存、是否需要认证），因此评分中等。

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?

描述使用标题和编号列表结构化呈现，信息密度适中，但部分内容（如使用场景和流程存在重复）可进一步精简，整体上清晰且聚焦。

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?

工具只有一个参数且无输出 schema，描述提供了完整的上下文：使用前导、流程、示例以及返回内容的基本说明，足以让 AI agent 正确选择和调用。

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?

参数 objectId 的 schema 描述已明确其来源（从 find_docs 获取），描述中重复了该信息但未增加额外语义，如格式或限制。由于 schema 覆盖率为 100%，描述未产生额外价值，基准 3 分合理。

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?

描述明确指定动词'读取'和资源'ArkTS 文档的完整内容'，并通过使用场景与 find_docs 区分，说明该工具用于获取已找到文档的完整内容，与其他兄弟工具（如 find_docs 搜索、ask_ai 问答）界限清晰。

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?

描述详细说明了使用前提（先调用 find_docs）和完整流程（三步），并提供了具体示例，明确指导 AI agent 何时以及如何使用该工具，避免误用。

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