yuque_get_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but there is no mention of error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior when the resource is missing. The baseline is set to 3 due to the minimal risk of a read operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the structured view contains. It does not mention the return format or fields. For a read tool, this is a notable gap, though the schema coverage is high.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that resource_id is the raw ID (not the full board:// locator) and that resource_type is limited to board, which is not fully detailed in the schema enum alone.

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 reads a structured resource view from a Yuque document. It specifies the only supported resource_type (board) and how to correctly provide the resource_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like yuque_create_resource or yuque_update_resource. It only hints at the current limitation to board, but lacks context on when retrieval is appropriate.

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