get_area_personnel

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds '数据来自 Java 实时 API' (real-time data from Java API) and lists exact return fields (tag code, binding name, coordinates, entry time), providing excellent behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus structured bullet for parameters and return. Uses emoji for quick categorization. Every line adds value, no 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?

Simple tool with one required parameter. Description covers purpose, parameter, return values, and data source. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter (areaId), schema coverage 100%. Description merely restates '区域ID' but adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter well.

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?

Clearly states '查询某区域内当前的人员' (query current personnel in a specific area). Verb and resource are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like list_personnel (all personnel) and get_personnel_location (single person).

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?

Description explicitly requires areaId parameter and states the tool queries personnel in an area. Implicitly suggests use for area-scoped queries vs. list_personnel for all. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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