get_sprout

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "已授权用户" hints that access is scoped to the caller's own authorized content, but the description does not state error behavior for invalid ids, whether access can fail on permissions, or any rate/return characteristics beyond the word "原文".

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?

One short sentence, front-loading the action and resource, with the id provenance appended. Nothing is padded and nothing needs pruning.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description minimally suffices: it names the returned payload (original text) and the id source. It still leaves gaps around failure modes and permission behavior that, with zero annotation coverage, only the description could supply.

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 0% for a single required `id` string, so the description must compensate. It does add provenance (the id comes from list_sprouts), which is genuinely helpful for locating a valid value, but it gives no format, type, or validity constraints for the id itself.

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: read the original text (原文) of a sprout report, as opposed to list_sprouts which enumerates them. The list/get distinction is clear enough to separate it from its nearest sibling, though the description is a single sentence with no explicit contrast statement.

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?

"id 来自 list_sprouts" implies the two-step workflow (enumerate with list_sprouts, then fetch content here), which is useful routing. However there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, prerequisites, or what happens if the id is unknown or unauthorized.

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