查看错题

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('读取') which implies no mutation, and it discloses the optional behavior of including complete review history. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention permission/rate limits, but for a simple get tool, the description provides sufficient behavioral context without contradiction.

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 compact sentence with two clauses. The main function is front-loaded, and the optional feature is appended concisely. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema (which covers return details), the description is adequate. It covers the primary action and the only significant optional behavior (history). It does not detail error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a get operation. Sibling tool names provide additional context that this is the single-problem fetch, not a search.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: '固定编号' clarifies that 'number' is a fixed identifier, and '需要分析学习轨迹时可包含完整复习历史' explains the purpose and semantics of 'include_history'. Both parameters receive meaningful context beyond their type/default values.

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 '读取' (read) with a clear resource '错题' (wrong problem) and method '按固定编号' (by fixed number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_problems by emphasizing precise retrieval via a fixed identifier, and it adds the optional history inclusion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a fixed number and need a precise read. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use search_problems if you don't know the number'), but the phrasing '按固定编号' signals the precondition. The history clause gives a specific trigger for including history, providing some situational guidance.

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