sbwsz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('获取单张卡牌' - get a single card) without any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, error handling (e.g., what happens if the card isn't found), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a lookup operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, parameter details, or return values. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be effective.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'set' and 'collector_number' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by naming these parameters ('系列代码' - set code and '收集编号' - collector number) but doesn't explain what they represent (e.g., format examples like 'M21' for set or '001' for collector number), valid values, or constraints. This partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: '通过系列代码和收集编号获取单张卡牌' (Get a single card by set code and collector number). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('单张卡牌' - single card), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_set_cards (which likely gets multiple cards) and search_cards (which likely searches broadly). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_set, which might also retrieve card-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for precise lookup by known identifiers) or when not to use it (e.g., for searching by name or browsing sets). With siblings like search_cards and get_set_cards available, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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