get_evidence_pack_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('查看' meaning view) and states it returns content and statistics, which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if pack_id is invalid). The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavior beyond that is vague.

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 concise, with a title line, a brief use sentence, and a structured Args/Returns section. It avoids unnecessary words. The bilingual nature (Chinese/English) may add minor overhead but is not wasteful. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (single required integer parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and what it returns. It mentions 'content and statistics,' which is sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function. However, it could be improved by hinting at what the output schema contains (e.g., list of documents, counts).

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?

The only parameter, pack_id, has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds '证据包 ID' (evidence pack ID) in the Args section, clarifying its purpose as an identifier. While this adds some meaning, it does not explain how to obtain the ID (e.g., from list_evidence_packs) or specify constraints (e.g., required integer). Baseline is 3 as schema coverage is low but the description partially compensates.

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 '获取证据包详情' (get evidence pack details) and '查看已保存的证据包内容和统计信息' (view saved evidence pack content and statistics), specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_evidence_packs (lists all) and build_evidence_pack (creates) by focusing on viewing a single pack's details, but could be more explicit about the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_evidence_packs or build_evidence_pack. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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