专辑详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that a track list accompanies the album metadata, but says nothing about missing/empty albums, error behavior, or result shape beyond that phrase.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action and result. It is efficient, though too terse to route the agent among siblings.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows it fetches album info plus tracks. It omits sibling differentiation and any hint of return structure, which the absent output schema would otherwise require the description to supply.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented as '专辑 ID（数字）' with a positive-integer constraint. The description adds nothing about the ID's origin or validity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取专辑信息') and additionally names the payload ('曲目列表'), so an agent knows this is an album-detail fetch that also returns tracks. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_playlist or get_song_detail, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_playlist, get_artist, or get_song_detail, nor any prerequisite (e.g., where the album ID comes from). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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