get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does add one valuable behavioral detail — the truncation rule when max_chars>0 — which is genuinely beyond what the schema states. However, it never explicitly declares the read-only nature of the operation or describes the response shape, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose first and the parameter behavior second. Every clause earns its place and the content is immediately scannable.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient: purpose and truncation behavior are stated. The gaps are that no output schema exists, so the agent cannot know which metadata fields return, and the description does not define the max_chars=0 meaning. These are minor for the typical call pattern but not fully covered.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning for max_chars by explaining the truncation condition, which the schema's bare 'default: 0' does not convey. However, it leaves the zero/default case ambiguous (does max_chars=0 mean full text?) and does not clarify what fields constitute 'metadata', leaving article_id semantics implicit.

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 ('取' - get/fetch), a specific resource (an article by id), and a specific scope ('完整元数据与全文' - complete metadata and full text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles (which retrieves collections, not single articles) and search (which queries rather than fetches by ID).

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 gives no context on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that retrieval by ID is the right choice when a specific article pointer already exists, nor does it contrast with search or list_articles. An agent must infer the appropriate usage from the name alone.

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