get_puzzle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves puzzle content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what '完整内容' (complete content) entails. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it includes unnecessary formatting like 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that don't add value beyond the schema. The sentences are efficient, but the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly or omitting redundant parts.

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 complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '完整内容' (complete content) includes, how errors are handled, or what '选择结果信息' (selection result information) means in the returns. Without annotations or output schema, more detail is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It documents the parameter 'puzzle_title' as '海龟汤的标题' (turtle soup title), which provides some context, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only specifies the parameter name and type. The description doesn't compensate by explaining format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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 tool's purpose: '获取一个谜题的完整内容' (get the complete content of a puzzle). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '谜题' (puzzle), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_puzzles_tool' or 'get_prompt', which could be used for similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_puzzles_tool' (which might list puzzles) or 'get_prompt' (which might retrieve prompts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the parameter 'puzzle_title', but no explicit context is given.

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