GetNetwork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('获取' - get), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about the network resource type, return format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would be helpful for the agent to use it correctly.

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 parameter 'Id' documented as '网络资源ID' (network resource ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what format the ID should be in, where to find it, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 '获取某个网络资源详细信息' (Get detailed information of a network resource) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('网络资源' - network resource), but it's vague about what constitutes 'detailed information' and doesn't distinguish this tool from other Get* tools in the sibling list (like GetResource, GetNode, GetRoute). It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., GetResource, GetNode, ListNetworks), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The agent must infer 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.