get_mv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully indicates a read-only operation ('读') and that it is free ('免费'), which is more transparent than many similar tools. However, it does not explain what 'current status' concretely includes or what the return value will look like.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. '免费' is a minor extra but still relevant behavioral context, and every part earns its place.

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 getter with no output schema, the description conveys the general purpose well. However, it leaves gaps: drama_id is not linked to the MV project concept, and the expected return shape is undefined.

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%, and the description never mentions drama_id or explains how it maps to an MV project. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter name and integer type, so the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 states a specific action ('读' = read) and resource ('歌词/故事/剧本当前状态' = current status of lyrics/story/script) for an MV project. It clearly distinguishes itself from write/generate siblings like set_mv_lyrics and generate_mv_script, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies usage for reading current status but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that get_script, get_drama, or other getter tools might be more appropriate for different needs.

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