get_drama

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds that the operation is read-only ('读') and free ('免费'), which is useful context beyond the name, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any access requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the core purpose, lists representative content, and adds a relevant pricing note ('免费'). No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description conveys what the tool returns (drama details: setting, character/scene counts, asset statistics) and its cost. Minor gaps such as response shape or error handling would be nice, but the key context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does not explicitly define drama_id but maps it to '一部剧' (a drama) through the purpose statement. The parameter's role as the target drama is inferable but not directly documented, and there are no format or sourcing details.

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 clear read verb ('读') with a specific resource ('一部剧的详情') and enumerates the contents (设定/角色数/场景数/资产统计等), which distinguishes it from sibling list/get-character/get-scene tools. An agent can immediately tell it retrieves a drama-level summary rather than individual entities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose get_drama over alternatives such as list_dramas, get_characters, get_scenes, or get_assets. The context is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or alternative conditions provided.

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