get_teacher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a lookup operation and exactly what is returned, including the current-semester course list. It omits edge cases like not-found or duplicate-name behavior, but these are minor for a simple read 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the lookup method and then state the returned data. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers both input semantics and return values. It could add handling for ambiguous names or missing teachers, but nothing essential is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is merely named 'name'. The description compensates fully by specifying that it accepts either a teacher name ('李老师') or employee ID ('T002') and gives concrete examples.

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 names the exact action (查询) and resource (教师信息), explicitly lists accepted lookup keys (name or employee ID), and enumerates the returned fields. This makes it clearly distinct from course- and assignment-focused siblings.

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 intended use is inferred: query teacher info by name or ID. However, there is no explicit comparison with sibling tools such as get_course or search_courses, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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