获取办公场所详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses no behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. It does not mention return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. The description is minimal and offers little beyond the tool's name.

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 concise sentence that fully communicates the core action and parameter. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details about what fields are included in '详细信息' or any special behavior, which makes it adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to know what to expect.

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 100% (officeid is described as '办公场所ID'). The description essentially restates the parameter's role without adding extra format, constraints, or examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 '根据场所ID获取详细信息' clearly states the action (获取/obtain) and resource (详细信息/detailed information) keyed by an ID. It is specific to a detail lookup, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_room_detail; differentiation relies on the tool name and title.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for retrieving office details when an office ID is available. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_office or get_room_detail, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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