查看 AGC API 文档

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: content is pulled live from Huawei's documentation center and cached locally for 7 days, and it accepts title/docId fragments as well as full docIds. This is useful operational information; no contradictions with annotations.

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 two dense sentences: the first states the deliverable and format, the second states source/caching behavior and input sourcing. No filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 read-only doc-fetch tool with no output schema, the description fully characterizes the return value (Markdown with URL, parameter tables, response fields, examples) and the includeExamples default. It gives enough operational detail to select and invoke the tool correctly, with annotations covering the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that docId can come from agc_search_api's doc field, or be an exact title or a docId fragment. This resolves ambiguity not present in the schema's terse docId description.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource pair: it reads the full contents of a Connect API document, and enumerates what that content contains (Markdown, interface URL, header/query/body parameter tables, response fields, examples). It also explicitly ties docId to agc_search_api's doc field, which differentiates it from the search sibling.

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?

It gives clear context: use this after agc_search_api, whose doc field supplies docId, and it notes the alternative input forms (exact title or docId fragment). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name excluded alternatives, but the routing from search to retrieval is clear.

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