GetDataQualityRuleTemplate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it queries details but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what format/details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase. While this is efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it does front-load the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to the borderline under-specification.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, what format they're in, or any behavioral characteristics. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for using this tool effectively is incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'Code' documented as '规则模版Code' (rule template Code). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 '查询质量规则模版详情' (Query quality rule template details) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetDataQualityRuleTemplate' in Chinese. It provides a verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('质量规则模版' - quality rule template), but lacks specificity about what 'details' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ListDataQualityRuleTemplates' which presumably lists templates rather than getting details of a specific one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'ListDataQualityRuleTemplates', or any context about required permissions or system state. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and parameter schema.

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