get_infographic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that details include 'deskripsi lengkap dan link download' (full description and download link), which adds some context about return content. However, it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or data format specifics, which are essential for a tool with parameters.

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, efficient sentence in Indonesian that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 complexity (a detail-retrieval tool with 2 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure (beyond mentioning description and download links), error cases, or how to obtain the required inputs. For a tool without structured output documentation, more behavioral and usage context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('domain' and 'id') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'domain' codes are or where to get the 'id'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Ambil detail' meaning 'Get details') and the resource ('satu infografis BPS' meaning 'one BPS infographic'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_infographics' by focusing on a single item rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other detail-retrieval tools (e.g., 'get_publication'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing domain and ID from 'list_infographics'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_publication' or 'get_static_table'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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