get_lecture_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only (though the name implies it), what happens if an invalid number is given, whether output is cached, or how errors are surfaced. The format detail (GFM conversion) is helpful, but overall behavioral disclosure is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete example. No wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavior notes), but it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and a 0%-coverage parameter schema, the description should compensate more by clarifying read-only nature, error handling, or the relationship to list_lectures. As is, it is minimally complete for a simple read-by-id tool.

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% and there is only one parameter ('number'). The description adds meaning by giving a concrete example (number=25 -> lecture 25) and implying the parameter is the lecture number. This is better than nothing but not comprehensive, so a baseline 3 is appropriate for a single-param tool where the schema itself is silent.

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 (get/获取) and resource (complete markdown lecture notes), with the format detail that tables are converted to GFM. This distinguishes it from list_lectures (which presumably enumerates) and get_knowledge_point (different resource). The purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 example ('number=25 returns 第二十五讲 动词时态3') implicitly signals when to use it: when you need the full markdown of a specific lecture by number. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., you must first know the lecture number via list_lectures), and no exclusions.

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