get_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does communicate read-only behavior ('读') and lack of cost ('免费') while listing the fields returned. It omits details like pagination, error behavior, or output shape, but these are less critical for a simple read tool.

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 compact sentence that packs in the resource, returned fields, and cost trait without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, returned content, and cost behavior. The only notable gap is a precise definition of episode_id, but it is largely inferable from the name and schema.

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 only refers to '某一集' without explicitly defining episode_id beyond the schema's type and constraint. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, it falls short.

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 verb ('读' / read), a clear resource ('某一集的场景列表'), and enumerates the returned fields (name/description/scene image readiness). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from generation and quoting siblings.

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 clearly implies the tool is for reading scene lists and even notes that it is free ('免费'), but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the many scene-related sibling tools.

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