get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the tool retrieves '完整内容 (含正文)' (full content including body) and supports multiple IDs, but doesn't disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when invalid IDs are provided. For a read operation 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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key capability (multiple ID support). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error responses, or any behavioral nuances that would help an agent use it correctly. The absence of annotations increases the need for more completeness.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'article_id' with its format and multi-ID support. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('文章' meaning 'articles'), specifying it retrieves full content including body text. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_headlines' (likely summaries) and 'search_articles' (search-based retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage when full article content is needed (vs. headlines or summaries), and mentions support for multiple IDs via comma separation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_articles' or 'get_headlines', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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