get_song_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON string with specific fields) and the input requirement. However, it does not mention edge cases like missing/invalid song_mid, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, this is not explicitly stated. The description provides adequate but not complete transparency.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement followed by two short sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is well-structured with clear labels. No fluff 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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, and the description covers purpose, input, and output. It does not provide examples or error scenarios, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. A slightly fuller description might mention expected error behavior, but this is not critical.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type (string), with no description. The tool description fills this gap by explaining song_mid as '歌曲的 MID 标识符' (the song's MID identifier), which gives meaningful context about what the parameter represents. This adds value beyond the bare 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 clearly states '获取歌曲详情' (get song details) and enumerates the return fields (song name, singer, album, duration, available quality), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_song_quality and get_song_url. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or situations where get_song_quality, get_song_url, or get_lyric would be more appropriate. The only implication is that this tool is for general details, but that is not explicitly stated.

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