get_program_modification_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a multi-step read operation (query list, then batch-fetch details) and returns a JSON string. It also explains why the default page_size is 5 ('避免请求过多'), adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, workflow behavior, then args and return type. Each sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no repetition of schema fields beyond useful semantic annotations.

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 two-parameter composite read tool, the description covers the operation, argument semantics, and return format sufficiently, especially given that an output schema is indicated. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly routing to sibling tools for single-step needs, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: page_no starts at 1, and page_size has a default of 5 with a rationale. This gives the agent the semantic meaning needed to invoke the tool correctly, which the bare input schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取程序修改流程列表及其详情' (get program modification workflow list and its details), and explicitly identifies it as a combined query. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_program_modification_workflows and get_workflow_detail by covering the whole list→detail flow in one call.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for when you need both the list and the details, describing the automatic 'list → ID → detail' flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the combined-query framing makes the intended usage context clear.

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