inspiration_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. Reading '详情' implies a read-only fetch, and the description usefully notes that favorite status is account-scoped ('当前账号是否已收藏'), but it never states read-only semantics, permission requirements, or that project_path/instance_id select the working context. It is generous about returned fields but thin about behavior.

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 whole definition is a single run-on sentence with stacked parentheticals, so it is dense and hard to scan, though the leading clause is front-loaded with the core purpose and every listed field is genuinely informative.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields (including nested video attributes like url, cover_url, likes, size), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before calling. It is only missing the usage/alternative context, which the field enumeration cannot cover.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters (instance_id, project_path, inspiration_id) is already documented in the schema, including the either/or relationship. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it is the detail view of a single inspiration ('一个灵感的详情') and then enumerates the concrete payload: gameplay notes, effect type, incentive info, images, author, rewards, related hotspots, official project, existing effects, videos, stickers, and favorite status. That is specific enough to distinguish it from a list operation, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like inspiration_list or task_detail.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus inspiration_list (which produces the id), rank_hotspots, or task_detail, all of which the parameter schema itself says also yield inspiration_id. The only routing hint is '用 image_view 看' for images, which is a follow-up action rather than a use-case boundary.

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