cls_describe_topic_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('获取' - get, '查看' - view) without implying mutation, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what '完整配置信息' includes. The description adds basic context but misses key operational details that would help an agent use 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter section. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, and the parameter explanations provide necessary context. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 context: 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the purpose and parameters well, and since an output schema is present, it doesn't need to explain return values. It's complete enough for a read operation, though it could benefit from more behavioral transparency (e.g., error cases) to fully guide the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a parameter section explaining 'topic_id' as required and 'region' as optional with examples (e.g., 'ap-guangzhou') and references 'cls_describe_regions' for available values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, covering both parameters adequately. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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: '获取日志主题详情。查看日志主题的完整配置信息' (Get log topic details. View complete configuration information for a log topic). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('日志主题详情' - log topic details), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cls_describe_topics' which might list topics rather than get details of a specific one.

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 implies usage by specifying that it retrieves '完整配置信息' (complete configuration information), suggesting it's for detailed views rather than summaries. It mentions an alternative tool 'cls_describe_regions' for querying available regions, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'cls_describe_topics' or 'cls_describe_logsets'. The context is clear but lacks comprehensive alternatives or exclusions.

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