doc_mget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool does (batch retrieval) and shows parameter usage, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling for missing documents, response format, or performance considerations. The description provides basic functionality but lacks behavioral context needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 for purpose, parameters, and examples. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, with every sentence serving a purpose. The Chinese text is efficient, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner. It's front-loaded with the main purpose statement.

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 the tool's complexity (batch operation with multiple parameter approaches), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It explains parameters well but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a batch retrieval tool in what appears to be an Elasticsearch context, more context about response structure would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in Chinese, clarifying their purposes and relationships (noting that index works with ids, and docs is an alternative approach). It provides concrete examples showing how parameters interact. While it doesn't specify data types or constraints, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose as '批量获取文档' (batch get documents), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_get (single document retrieval) and doc_bulk (batch indexing), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides implied usage guidance through the parameter explanations and examples, showing two different ways to use the tool (with docs array or with index+ids combination). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_get for single documents or msearch for more complex queries. The examples help but don't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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