get_exam_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the filtering behavior for trial ('sl1'/'sl2'/None=all), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given the 'get' name, some safety is implicit, but richer disclosure would be better.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and content first, then the parameter. There is no filler; every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core return content (subject hierarchy and core exam points) and the filtering behavior. It could specify the output format more precisely, but 'map' and 'hierarchy' provide enough guidance for an agent to understand 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully explains the only parameter 'trial', including allowed values ('sl1'/'sl2') and the meaning of None (全部/all). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the resource ('考點地圖', exam point map) and the content ('各科目層級與核心考點', subject hierarchy and core exam points). It also specifies the trial filter values, making the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but it is distinct enough from related tools like get_topic_distribution or get_issue_distribution.

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: an agent needing a hierarchical map of core exam points would use this tool. The description explains the trial parameter meaning, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. It is adequate but not explicit.

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