job104_get_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool's function and does not mention whether it is read-only, how errors are handled, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond 'details and requirements'. The name 'get_details' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm this or add behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essence: it retrieves detailed content and condition requirements for one job. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could be enhanced by explicitly noting that the job_url must be valid or that the tool is read-only, but given its simplicity, a slight deduction is made.

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 fully documents the one parameter (job_url) with a description and format example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '取得單一職缺的詳細內容與條件要求' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (detailed content and conditions of a single job posting). It distinguishes this tool from siblings (job104_search for searching, job104_prepare_application for applying) by focusing on retrieving details for an already-known specific job, making the purpose unequivocal.

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 the tool is used when you have a job URL and need detailed information for that single job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a URL. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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