gpss_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result contains an abstract and claims and that it is a single-record retrieval, but does not state that it is read-only, what happens on a miss, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core action, identifier types, and return contents, followed by a useful concrete example. Nothing is padded, though the example could be tied more tightly to the 'by' parameter.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the description still summarizes them, but gaps remain for a 3-parameter tool: the 'databases' parameter is undisclosed and the PN-vs-AN selection mechanism is only implied. Adequate but with clear omissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'number' accepts either a publication number or an application number (implying the selector role of 'by'), but the third parameter 'databases' is never mentioned and there is no enum/default guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('取單筆 GPSS 資料') and states the identifier types accepted (PN or AN) plus the returned content (摘要與請求項). The '單筆' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from gpss_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 single-record nature and a concrete example imply when to use it over gpss_search, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not condition, and no named alternative such as gpss_build_url or gpss_search.

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