sis_advisor

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavior burden. The verb 取 implies a read-only lookup, and the parenthetical (配额 / 余量 / 志愿人数) discloses which data is surfaced. However, it says nothing about permissions or scope (is it about the current user only?), nor about what happens before assignment results exist.

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 compact sentence with the core object (学业导师) front-loaded and return contents after the colon. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification.

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, so the task of describing what is returned falls on the description. It lists the returned parts (assignment result, per-round rosters, quota/remaining/volunteer counts), which is helpful but does not explain the shape or meaning of these fields. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so this is the baseline of 4: there is nothing in the schema to clarify beyond the empty object.

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 and resource: 取 (fetch) 学业导师 assignment results, plus the rosters per round. That is clearly distinguishable from the other sis_* tools such as sis_volunteer_history or sis_appointments. The only shortfall is that it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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 guidance on when to call this rather than a related sibling (e.g. sis_volunteer_list or sis_status), or conditions such as whether the result only appears after allocation. The agent must infer that usage from the name alone.

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