Base Wework Get Topic

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

The verb 'Xem' indicates a read-only operation, and the output schema covers the return shape, so the core behavior is clear. However, no annotations are provided, and the description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or data scoping.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the core operation, and the output schema provides return details. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent to infer when to use this tool and how to handle the access_token parameter, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'id' parameter via 'theo ID', but it says nothing about 'access_token' – its purpose, when it is needed, or why it defaults to null. With two parameters and one completely unexplained, the compensation is insufficient.

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 action ('Xem chi tiết nội dung' – view detailed content) and a specific resource ('bài thảo luận (topic) theo ID'), making it clear this fetches a single topic by ID. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_topics tool even though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like base_wework_list_topics or base_wework_get_task. The only implicit cue is 'theo ID', which suggests the caller must already have a topic ID, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection rules.

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