get_episode_revision_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or data scope), so it fails to provide value beyond the structured 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 very short (one phrase in Chinese) and front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though still informative enough to convey the action.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and comprehensive annotations, the description's brevity is acceptable. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify the return type or related data, leaving the agent with minimal context about the response.

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% with the single parameter revision_id already described as '历史版本ID' (historical version ID). The description does not add further meaning or format constraints, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.

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 '获取章节修订详情' clearly indicates the tool retrieves revision details for an episode, which is also evident from the name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_episode_revisions (list) and get_episode_info (basic info), though it could be more specific about what 'details' entails.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_episode_revisions or get_episode_info, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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