获取会议室详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get detailed information.' It does not mention that it is read-only, what happens if the room is not found, required permissions, or the structure of returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool that may involve network calls.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is concise and free of fluff, though it lacks extra context that could be useful. It earns its place but is minimal.

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 simple input schema (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description is adequate but vague: it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether it returns partial data, or any error behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves room for ambiguity but is not grossly insufficient.

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 100% (roomid is described as '会议室ID'). The description merely restates the parameter ('根据会议室ID') without adding additional context, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('详细信息' / detailed information) keyed to a room ID, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_office_detail and search_room. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a room ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_room to find the ID first, or get_office_detail for offices). No exclusions or context are provided.

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