get_exercise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers. It discloses that reference_answer is the confidential grading key and instructs not to leak it to learners, and that only exercises in the current pair can be read, with other/nonexistent IDs returning NOT_FOUND. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a basic 'get'.

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 one compound sentence but densely packs purpose, return fields, usage context, confidentiality warning, and scope constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, though the structure is somewhat run-on.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a thorough picture: return fields are enumerated, error behavior (NOT_FOUND) is specified, and the confidentiality warning covers an important handling concern. For a simple read tool, this is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains the ex_ prefix and the current-pair requirement. The tool description mostly restates this constraint and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it remains at the baseline.

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 ('读回'/'read back') with the resource 'exercise' and explicitly lists the returned fields (prompt, reference_answer, expected_concepts, tags, lesson info). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_exercise (creating) and grade_exercise (grading).

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?

It explicitly states when to use: '批改前先审教材用这个' (use this to fetch the problem statement and grading criteria before grading). It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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