whistle_value_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic 'get' action without mentioning read-only safety, what happens if the Value does not exist, auth requirements, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It communicates the essential purpose without any fluff, earning a high score for efficiency, though it could potentially add a tiny bit of context without becoming verbose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves the agent guessing about the response format and error behavior. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, a complete description would benefit from a brief mention of the return value or not-found handling.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'name' with 'Value 名称' (Value name), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gets the content of a specified Value, using a specific verb ('获取' = get) and resource ('Value'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like whistle_value_list (which lists all values) and whistle_value_set/remove (which modify values), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for retrieving a single known Value by name, nor does it reference sibling tools or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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