get_published_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as not-found behavior or ID source; it is not contradictory, but it also does not go beyond annotations.

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?

One short sentence states the action, the parameter, and the scope with no filler or repetition. The important qualifier '已发表' (published) is 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description, one required string parameter, and the annotations provide enough to invoke it correctly; an output schema covers return values. A small gap is the absence of not-found/error behavior, but this is not critical for call selection.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does name article_id and assign it meaning ('the ID of a single published article'). However, it does not explain the accepted format, where the ID comes from, or behavior for an unknown ID, so compensation is only partial.

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 action and resource: '按 article_id 获取单篇已发表文章' ('get a single published article by article_id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as list_published, get_draft, and get_publish_status by specifying 'published' and 'single'.

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 intended use for fetching one published article by ID is implied, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative like list_published for retrieving multiple articles. It is understandable but leaves selection reasoning to the agent.

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