Dossier Source Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real contract value — return payload composition (version hash, acquisition time) and the rule that absent metadata stays null rather than being model-filled. However it says nothing about the effect of limit/offset on the excerpt, failure modes for an unknown source_id, or auth requirements.

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 compact sentences with the core payload described first and the null-handling caveat second. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical could be folded in more tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly omitted, and the null-preservation rule is a useful addition. Still, with zero annotation coverage and undocumented pagination parameters, an agent lacks enough to call this confidently against its many siblings.

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 all four parameters (research_id, source_id, limit, offset) are bare types. The description never maps limit/offset to excerpt sizing or clarifies the identifier semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 concrete verb (取得) and a specific resource (单个来源的元数据与索引文本摘录), enumerating the payload components (内容版本哈希、取得时间). It is clearly a single-source fetch as distinct from collection-level siblings like dossier_query or dossier_result, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the nine siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that research_id must come from dossier_start). Usage is only implied by the word 单个来源. The closing sentence is a data-fidelity rule, not usage guidance.

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