读取网易云歌词

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying that no audio is downloaded and by enumerating the returned content types (LRC, translation, romaji). It omits error/auth/rate-limit behavior, so it is not a 5, but it provides meaningful extra transparency.

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 two compact clauses with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the exclusion is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the input (song ID), the returned content (LRC, translation, romaji), and the notable non-behavior (no audio download). It could mention error cases or response format, but those are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. '按歌曲 ID' confirms that the sole parameter songId is the lookup key for the lyrics, adding some meaning beyond the property name and regex pattern. It does not explain how to obtain a song ID or give additional guidance, which keeps it at an adequate but not rich level.

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 a specific verb ('读取' / read) and a precise resource (LRC, translation, and romaji lyrics) accessed by song ID. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it does not download audio, which separates it from audio-related siblings.

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 makes the target use case clear: fetch lyrics for a given song ID. It also gives a clear exclusion ('不下载音频'), but it does not name an alternative tool for downloading audio, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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