查询固定操作参数

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral role of being a prerequisite lookup that enforces real field names, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown action or about the shape of what comes back.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place, with the purpose stated first and the operational instruction second. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the main missing pieces are how to discover valid action names (likely a sibling such as capabilities) and what happens on an unknown action. No output schema exists, so it could also say a bit more about what the returned schema contains.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does clarify that the single parameter is an action identifier rather than free text. It adds no format, casing or example values for that identifier, leaving the key semantic partly undocumented.

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+resource: look up the complete parameter schema for a single fixed action, keyed by action name. It is clearly distinct from write siblings like submit_job, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger — call this before submitting and fill fields strictly per the returned schema — which tells the agent where in the workflow it belongs. It does not state exclusions or point to the sibling that lists valid action names.

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