instrument_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful behavior that results in room location, contacts, and a booking entry point, and its verb 检索 implies a read-only operation. But it does not mention caching behavior (which the refresh parameter hints at), how results are ordered, or what happens when no match is found. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical enumeration, front-loaded on the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, although the parenthetical mixing instrument examples with return fields is slightly dense and could be split for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming what a result contains (location, contact, booking link), which covers the main uncertainty of whether this is a directory or a booking tool. With a low-complexity, all-optional-parameter search tool, this is close to complete; only absence of result-shape or empty-result behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 each of the three parameters (limit, keyword, refresh) is documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The prose adds the instrument categories that are valid keyword values, which marginally helps, but it does not explain the left limit bound (1–50) or the interaction between refresh and any caching layer. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Combines a specific verb (检索) with a specific resource (西湖大学大型科研仪器设备) and enumerates concrete instrument classes (冷冻电镜、质谱仪、核磁共振、激光共焦). It also previews the returned fields (房间地点、联系人与预约入口), making the tool distinguishable from generic search siblings such as site_search or faculty_search. What is missing is explicit differentiation from the closest neighbors, but the domain is narrow enough that the distinction is clear.

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 implies usage through the keyword parameter: an empty keyword returns a comprehensive list, and a specific term such as 电镜 narrows the search. However, it does not state when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like sites_index, campus_map, or contact_info, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context remains implied rather than explicit.

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