读取短故事详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose which fields are returned (title, word count, category, signing status, modifiability) since there is no output schema, and notes the endpoint tag (edit/v1). However, it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or whether a missing item_id/story returns an error.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. The trailing '(edit/v1)' is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation and makes the definition usable as-is. The main residual gap is the absence of any auth or usage context that siblings imply.

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 100% and there is a single required item_id that the schema already documents. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (读取) and resource (某条短故事), and enumerates the fields it retrieves (title, body word count, category, signing status, modifiable). The singular '某条' plus item_id distinguishes it from list_short_stories_tomato, but the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing login_tomato/set_tomato_cookies first), and no routing against siblings like list_short_stories_tomato or get_publish_status. The agent must infer that this fetches one story by id.

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