获取语雀文档

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by '获取'), returns detailed information including content and stats, and supports multiple input formats. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response structure. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists supported input formats with examples, and finally enumerates the returned information in a bulleted list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, input methods, and return data. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the response format (e.g., structure of '文档完整内容'). Still, it provides sufficient context for basic usage, justifying a score above minimum viable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the two input formats and how parameters interact (e.g., '如果提供了 docUrl 则忽略此参数' for namespace), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: '获取文档的详细信息' (get detailed information about a document) from Yuque. It specifies the resource (Yuque document) and the action (retrieve details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-yuque-toc' (which likely gets table of contents) or 'list-yuque-docs' (which likely lists documents), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage context by detailing two supported input formats (URL vs. namespace+slug), which implies when to use each format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-yuque-docs' or 'get-yuque-toc', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent in selecting between siblings.

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