get_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: auto-filtering of soft-deleted questions, ordering by input order, structure of options (in block_json), and maximum batch size. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 concise yet comprehensive, structured with bullet points for parameters and return fields. Every sentence adds value: purpose, API endpoint, parameter details, return format, and special notes about options. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema described), the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, output fields, ordering, filtering, and behavior for question types. It is complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'ids' parameter. The description adds significant meaning: the type (strings, snowflake numbers), constraints (single call ≤100), and behavior (order preserved). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('按id批量拉题目详情') which is retrieving question details by IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_questions (for searching) and delete_questions (for deletion) by specifying batch retrieval by ID list.

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 includes a warning ('装段前人工核对') indicating when to exercise caution, and mentions constraints like max 100 IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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