get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully declares '只读' (read-only) and that omitting out_format skips transcoding. However it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or the nature of the returned data, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Four telegraphic clauses, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. Everything stated earns its place for a simple tool.

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 3-optional-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter exclusivity, transcoding, and read-only status. But with no output schema, what '语音信息' actually returns (path, URL, base64, metadata) is left unexplained.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not encode: file and file_id are mutually exclusive alternatives ('传一个') and out_format is purely optional/transcoding. That mutual-exclusivity hint is genuine added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — retrieving voice/audio records — plus an optional transcode capability via out_format. It is clearly distinguishable by resource from siblings like get_image and get_msg, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives real parameter guidance ('pass one of file/file_id') but no when-to-use versus when-not, no conditions for preferring this over get_msg or get_image, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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