douyin_prepare_comment_brief

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool will generate 3-5 comments, present them for one-time confirmation, and explicitly clarifies that it does not generate or send comments. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations are consistent, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool will and will not do.

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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, expected output (3-5 comments), usage context (user confirmation), and key constraint (does not send). The second sentence is slightly dense but every clause provides value, so it earns a 4.

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?

Given the tool's combined search-and-prepare nature and lack of an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the tool searches real videos, generates a brief with a specified number of comments, and returns them for user confirmation. It does not detail output structure or how it integrates with sibling tools, but for a read-only preparation tool, this is sufficient.

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 compensate for parameter explanations. It directly mentions '方向' (direction) as a guide for generating comments, and '搜索' implies the keyword parameter, but it does not explain 'sampleSize' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds limited clarity beyond the schema.

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's function: '搜索真实视频并生成评论预制简报' (search real videos and generate pre-made comment briefs). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it does not generate or send comments, positioning it as a preparation step rather than an execution step.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when the user wants a comment brief generated from real videos and presented for confirmation. It also implicitly excludes sending by stating '此工具不会生成或发送评论', implying other tools handle sending. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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