anjian_get_assessment

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 states the three things read (authorization scope, recent observations, manual confirmation results) which gives some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or whether it can be called independently or requires an existing assessment. The fields read are enumerated, which is useful, but safety/behavioral traits are under-specified.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose. It's appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without violating conciseness.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is thin. There's no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what's returned, but it only names three data categories (scope, observations, confirmations) without elaboration on format or depth. Given the read-only nature and single param, it's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and dependencies.

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 0% — the single parameter `assessment_id` has no description beyond its name. The tool description doesn't elaborate on what format the assessment_id should take (UUID, numeric, slug?) or where to obtain it (perhaps from anjian_create_assessment or anjian_list_assessments). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states what the tool does: reads an assessment's authorization scope, recent observations, and manual confirmation results. It has a specific verb ('读取'/read) and resource ('评估'/assessment). However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like anjian_quick_assess or anjian_get... (no other get-sibling exists, but anjian_list_assessments could overlap without clarification).

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't say when one would want to read an assessment's scope/observations versus using anjian_list_assessments, or whether this should be called before/after other operations like anjian_run_assessment or anjian_validate_observation. Context is purely implied.

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