GetResource

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-only operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the resource doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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. It doesn't explain what 'details' include in the return value, potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool in a complex data development environment with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with both parameters (Id and ProjectId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 '获取数据开发文件资源详情' (Get data development file resource details) clearly states the action (get) and resource (file resource details), but it's somewhat vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like GetResourceGroup or GetTask, which also retrieve details of different resources. It avoids 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'Get' tools (e.g., GetResourceGroup, GetTask, GetProject), the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for file resources in data development contexts, leaving the agent to 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.