dsh_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the return payload (title, workspace, permission tier, status, turn count, token usage, context pressure, pending approvals, full turn result). It omits explicit read-only confirmation and any error behavior for invalid ids.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action; the run_id variant is emphasized before the return-value inventory. Dense but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates the return fields, which is the main missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. Only error/edge-case behavior and an explicit read-only statement are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces run_id's meaning as the async verification handle and restates the default-to-latest-turn behavior, but adds little the schema does not already say.

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?

States a specific verb ('查看' / retrieve) and resource ('单个会话的详情'), then splits the behavior into two modes (with vs. without run_id). This is clearly distinct from dsh_list (enumeration) and dsh_send (dispatch), though no sibling is named 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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: with run_id it is the acceptance/verification entry for async dispatches; without run_id it returns the most recent turn. It does not name alternatives (e.g., dsh_list for discovery), but the selection conditions between the two modes are unambiguous.

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