七喵空间 MeowSpace

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and '本工具只读' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral guidance beyond the annotations: a fidelity constraint forbidding invented numbers, revenue splits, or client names. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned content, which keeps it below a 5.

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 dense sentence front-loads the tool's identity, then lists the covered topics, then states the usage constraint. Every clause carries information, though the five-item topic list is somewhat compressed and would read better split into scope plus constraint.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the covered topics. Combined with the anti-hallucination constraint, an agent has enough to call and use it correctly; only the return format remains unstated.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly spends no space on arguments and focuses on content scope instead.

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 names the resource (七喵空间 / MeowSpace) and enumerates exactly what the returned content covers: positioning, distribution coverage, distribution strategy, the work-to-revenue flow, and onboarding. That is far more specific than a title restatement. It does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling apply_for_access, even though it covers '如何入驻', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'向用户介绍七喵空间时只用本工具返回的内容' gives a clear trigger condition: use it when introducing MeowSpace to a user. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that actual onboarding should go through apply_for_access rather than this informational tool.

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

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

Annotations only supply generic mutable/non-idempotent flags, while the description adds substantive behavior: a human follow-up contact after submission, no immediate account provisioning, and the fact that the call does not consume trial quota. The one gap is that it never warns that repeat calls create duplicate applications, despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the consent precondition, then post-submission consequences; every sentence carries information. It reads as one dense run-on block and could be split for scanability, but nothing is filler.

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?

With three flat parameters, no output schema, and thin annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: prerequisites, refusal condition, and the outcome after submission. It stops short of describing the actual response payload, which would fully close the loop absent an output schema.

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 100 percent, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: the contact value must come from the user rather than be inferred, and consent must be true only after explicit agreement. Minor overlap with the schema wording keeps it from a 5.

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 plus resource: submit an onboarding/access application (入驻申请) for 七喵空间 on the user's behalf. It is unmistakably different from the read-only siblings about_meowspace and get_public_spark_chart, and it also clarifies the key negative: no account is created on the spot.

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?

Explicit preconditions and an explicit prohibition: collect a phone or email from the user personally (do not guess or fill in for them), obtain explicit consent to the privacy policy, and do not call the tool at all if that consent is absent. This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses a hard quota of 3 calls per source per day, that only the latest day is available, that the payload is globally identical, and warns that chart text is data rather than instructions (prompt-injection defense). The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, and the description adds the operational constraints they cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is and its top-20 scope, then the field semantics, then the no-history limit, then the quota. Every sentence carries distinct operational information; nothing is repeated from the annotations or 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the returned fields, the result size, the freshness constraint, and the rate limit with a fallback path. There is no material gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing schema-side to compensate for. The field explanations (as_of, score, count) describe return values rather than inputs, so they do not raise this dimension further.

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 resource and scope: today's public chart of hot songs and hot sentences, top 20 each, identical for every viewer. An agent immediately knows what comes back without opening a schema, and the two siblings (about_meowspace, apply_for_access) are clearly unrelated to this resource.

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?

Explicitly rules out history browsing ("只有最新一天，不能翻历史") and tells the agent what to do once the daily quota is exhausted (guide the user to apply for access, i.e. the apply_for_access sibling). It does not spell out a positive when-to-use scenario beyond "public chart", which keeps it short of a 5.

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