steamdt_get_inspect_by_asmd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a rate limit and scarcity, but does not disclose the output format (e.g., image URL vs binary), whether the call is synchronous/asynchronous, or authentication requirements. The optional notifyUrl suggests possible async behavior, but this is not clarified.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, and rate limit. No fluff or redundant information. The key action is front-loaded.

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?

Despite a 100% schema coverage and a concise description, critical context is missing: no output schema or description of return value (e.g., image URL or binary), no explanation of why all parameters are optional, and no clarification on the notifyUrl parameter's behavior. The tool's complexity (5 optional params) requires more completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds the context that the ASMD parameters come from a wear data tool (implied by prerequisite), but does not elaborate on individual parameter meaning or how to obtain them beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents them.

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 verb '生成' (generate), the resource '饰品 2D 检视图' (item 2D inspection view), and the method '通过 ASMD 参数' (via ASMD parameters). It also mentions a prerequisite (wear data), which differentiates it from sibling tools like steamdt_get_inspect_by_url that use a URL instead.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('需先获取磨损度数据' - need to obtain wear data first), guiding the agent to call another tool beforehand. It also includes a rate limit (100次/天). However, it does not name the specific sibling tool for wear data or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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