get_interpellation

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

Without annotations, the description states the return format (JSON string) and error handling (Chinese error message). It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or behavior when the interpellation is not found. Not exhaustive but adequate.

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 concise Python-style docstring with Args and Returns sections. It uses clear language and includes a representative example. Every sentence is useful; no unnecessary content.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter, return format, and errors. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage, though it could mention its role relative to list_interpellations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the parameter description from the schema ('質詢編號，必填，例：11-1-1-1'), adding no new meaning. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 '取得' (get) and the resource '特定質詢的詳細資訊' (detailed info of a specific interpellation). It specifies the required parameter interpellation_id with an example, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like list_interpellations or get_meet_interpellations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_interpellations (for listing) or get_meet_interpellations (for interpellations in a meeting). No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or exclusions are mentioned.

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