读取短剧媒体实时模型

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that results include 账号约束 (account constraints) and that the tool '不生成' anything, but the read-only/no-generation point largely restates readOnlyHint, and nothing is said about refresh/liveness despite the title claiming 实时 (real-time).

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?

One dense sentence with semicolon-separated clauses, front-loaded with the query scope followed by the exclusions. No filler, though '按官网model_options' is an internal reference that costs the reader more than it returns.

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-only lookup with a single parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope and exclusions adequately. The gap is the undocumented scene_code value domain, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call the tool successfully.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no meaning at all. The description does not explain what scene_code accepts or how it relates to segment_keyframe vs segment_video, leaving the agent to guess the value domain.

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 gives a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (segment_keyframe 或 segment_video 模型), and explicitly carves out the canvas category so the agent can tell it apart from the broader pavo_list_models sibling. The only weakness is the cryptic '按官网model_options' phrasing, which is opaque without prior knowledge of the upstream API.

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?

Usage is implied through the '不混用canvas类别' exclusion and the segment_keyframe/segment_video scoping, which tells the agent this is for short-drama segment media models rather than canvas models. However, it never states positively when to call this instead of pavo_list_models or at what point in the storyboard workflow it should be invoked.

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