工单详情

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it maps to two GET endpoints (/fetch/detail + /fetch/sql) and specifies the output scope (SQL details and complete SQL), but does not disclose pagination or response format behavior. No contradiction with 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 with clear subject and endpoints; no filler or repetition. Front-loaded in Chinese and every word adds value.

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?

As a read-only detail retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic return summary (SQL details and full SQL) and endpoint mapping but lacks guidance on pagination behavior, response format options, and when to use this tool versus siblings. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent but remains adequate for basic invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%; only work_id has a description ('工单号'). The description does not explain page, page_size, or response_format meanings and does not compensate for the low schema coverage. The tool's title implies work_id refers to an order, but no detailed parameter semantics are provided.

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 '查看工单详情：SQL 明细与完整 SQL' (view order details: SQL details and full SQL), specifying the exact resource and scope. It also names the corresponding endpoints, which distinguishes it from siblings like yearning_order_timeline and yearning_rollback_sql.

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 provides no usage guidance: no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or references to alternative tools for different order-related needs. It only states the function, so agents cannot determine when to prefer this over yearning_order_timeline or yearning_my_orders.

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