get_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' questions, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements (JSESSIONID suggests auth needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter listings. It uses minimal sentences without unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading more critical information like authentication needs or output format.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements (implied by JSESSIONID but not explained), expected output format, error handling, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by listing parameters with brief explanations (e.g., '用户的JSESSIONID' for JSESSIONID, '课程ID' for course_id), which helps clarify what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 verb '获取' (get) and resource '课程题目' (course questions), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_question', which would require a 5. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 like 'get_courses' or 'submit_question'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It merely lists parameters without usage context.

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