get_deliverables

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read ('读') and adds the qualifier '免费' (free), which provides some useful context. However, it does not disclose return shape, failure behavior for missing drama_id, or any operational caveats beyond this.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds concrete examples and the free-of-charge note. Every element earns its place and there is no repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives a solid conceptual picture of what is returned. However, it omits any reference to the required drama_id and provides no output format information, which would help an agent know what to expect after calling it. The '品牌片' qualifier adds context but its exact significance is left unexplained.

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?

There is one required parameter, drama_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention drama_id at all, so it provides no added meaning about which drama the deliverable tree belongs to or how the parameter is used. The parameter name is suggestive but the description should have compensated for the schema's silence.

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' (read) with a specific resource '交付物树' (deliverables tree), and provides examples of what it contains (posters, masters, tracks, platform versions). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_deliverables by framing this as a read operation, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 read-oriented phrasing implies this tool should be used when the agent needs to inspect existing deliverables rather than create or modify them. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over the sibling generate_deliverables, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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