wop_link_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that relative paths are automatically joined to the document center base and that the result is markdown content, but it does not address permissions, authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. Most content earns its place, though the Returns section repeats information that may also be available in the output schema.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and return format. It is nearly complete, but it omits sibling routing guidance and any mention of authentication or access constraints.

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% for the single url parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that url can be either a complete URL or a document-center-relative path, including example paths and the automatic base concatenation behavior, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 gives a specific verb (获取) and resource (文档中心子页面或外部链接的详细内容), so an agent can tell it fetches page content rather than generates keys or shows an overview. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as wop_api_detail or wop_overview, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains that the tool accepts a full URL or a document-center-relative path and that relative paths are automatically resolved against the document center base. This gives clear input context, but it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like wop_api_detail or wop_overview, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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