get_category_detail

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 mentions the GET API endpoint, implying it's a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or permissions, which would enhance 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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, API, 回傳結構). It is concise with no unnecessary information, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides the return structure (dict with fields), which is helpful since there is no output schema. It covers the essential information for using the tool. Could mention error scenarios or required permissions, but overall complete.

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 single parameter 'category_id' has a description in the input schema that already explains it comes from get_category_tree. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 it retrieves full details of a single product category, specifying fields like name, description, parent category. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_category_tree (which lists categories) and update_category.

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 '用途' section explains when to use: when needing detailed info for a known category ID. It implies that if the ID is unknown, one should first use get_category_tree. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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