GetProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('获取' - get), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the ID is invalid, if it returns structured data, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 phrase ('获取工作空间详情') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured project details. It doesn't hint at what '详情' (details) includes—such as metadata, configuration, or status—leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a retrieval tool with rich sibling context, more completeness is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'Id' clearly described as 'DataWorks工作空间的ID' (DataWorks workspace ID). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '获取工作空间详情' (Get workspace details) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('工作空间详情' - workspace details), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProjectMember' or 'GetProjectRole', which also retrieve project-related information, making it somewhat vague about what specific 'workspace details' are returned.

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 like 'ListProjects' (which might list multiple projects) and other 'Get*' tools for specific project components, there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate, such as for retrieving high-level project metadata versus detailed member or role information.

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