get_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. The verb '取得' implies a read-only retrieval, and 'structured content' hints at the return nature, but the description does not disclose possible errors, exact response shape, or any side-effect-related caveats. This is adequate but minimal for a simple fetch-by-ID tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key parameter format before stating the result, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it defines the input format and the type of result. It only lacks explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the many sibling tools, but for invoking the tool with a known qid, the essential information is present.

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 input schema only labels the parameter as 'Qid' with type string, while the description adds essential semantics: qid means 年-考試-科目-題號 (year-exam-subject-question-number). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and tells the agent exactly what value to supply.

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 uses a specific verb '取得' and a clear resource '單題結構化內容' (structured content of a single question), and explicitly defines the qid format as 年-考試-科目-題號. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_questions or get_exam_paper.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_model_answer or search_questions. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisite context that would help an agent choose correctly.

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