query_meet_windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('查询' - query) without detailing what the query returns (e.g., list of windows, their properties), any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase ('查询预约窗口') that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative, but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple query 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?

Given the complexity of a query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'appointment windows' are, what data is returned, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('status' and 'limit'), including enum values and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra 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?

The description '查询预约窗口' (Query appointment windows) states a clear verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('预约窗口' - appointment windows), establishing the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'appointment windows' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_all_reservations' or 'query_reservations', which appear to query related but different resources.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for querying reservations and windows (e.g., 'query_all_reservations', 'query_reservations', 'create_meet_window'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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