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. It states this is a read operation ('获取' - get), but doesn't describe what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes, potential errors (e.g., invalid set_code), response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes in the response, potential error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more context is needed to fully understand its use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that 'set_code' is used to '获取单个系列的详细信息' (get detailed information of a single series), which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic context but doesn't detail format constraints or examples. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here there is one parameter with some added semantics.

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: '根据系列代码获取单个系列的详细信息' (Get detailed information of a single series based on series code). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('单个系列的详细信息' - detailed information of a single series). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sets' (likely for multiple series) or 'get_set_cards' (likely for cards within a series), leaving some ambiguity.

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 sibling tools like 'get_sets' (for listing series) or 'get_set_cards' (for cards in a series), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit context for selection.

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