get_committee

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (JSON with basic info, member info) and error behavior (raises Chinese error message). Lacks mention of idempotency or side effects, but sufficient for a read operation.

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?

Description is concise with structured sections (Args, Returns, Raises). No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 one-parameter getter with output schema, the description is fully complete: explains return format, error handling, and parameter usage.

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?

Parameter schema has 100% coverage with description matching the description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, warranting baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'specific committee information', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_committees (listing) and get_committee_meets (meetings).

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It implies a specific committee code is needed, but does not mention when not to use (e.g., when listing is needed).

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