get_roster

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: unconfirmed unit identities and unknown point values stay in an explicit state rather than being dropped or fabricated, which shapes how the agent should interpret the result. It still says nothing about pagination or the shape of the return payload.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terse clause structure makes the last behavior clause easy to skim past.

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 read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a conceptual level and warns about incomplete data. It falls short on parameter guidance, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling it with four hashed identifiers.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description bears the full burden of explaining report_id, case_id, release_id, and dataset_revision. It mentions none of them, leaving the agent to infer required identifiers and the meaning of the optional release/revision selectors from names alone.

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 pairs a specific verb (读取/read) with concrete resources: the public army roster, prepared detachments, and organization structure. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool list_rosters, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_rosters or get_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage signal is '公开/public', which is too faint to count as real routing guidance.

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