get_live_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the required OAuth scope (topic.live.read) and reveals return content structure (post_summary, post_media_text). However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or rate limits that would fully characterize the operation's behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence declares purpose and return payload, second states auth requirement. Information density is high with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description compensates by explicitly naming the key return fields (post_summary, post_media_text) and the required scope. Given the tool's narrow focus (fetching a specific live record) and complete input schema, the definition provides sufficient context for 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (topic_id and live_id fully documented). Description text does not add redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas. It references list_topic_lives in the live_id schema description, providing useful lineage context.

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?

Description uses specific verb '获取' (get) + resource '直播详情' (live broadcast details) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling note tools (get_note, list_notes) by targeting 'live' content. It further clarifies the specific data returned: AI summary and full transcription.

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?

Provides clear prerequisite: '需要 topic.live.read scope' (requires topic.live.read scope). Implies usage context by detailing the specific outputs (AI summary, transcription) available through this endpoint, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_topic_lives in the main description text.

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