get_user_posts

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 only says 'view' (查看), implying a read operation, but it discloses no further behavioral traits such as authentication needs, pagination behavior, rate limits, or how it handles non-existent users. The description is too thin on side effects and constraints.

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 brief and to the point, with the core purpose in the first line and parameter details listed cleanly. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 it is a simple read/list tool with an output schema present (per context signals), the description covers the essential parameters and purpose. It could mention pagination behavior or ordering, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains user_id is a numeric ID (with format hint from the URL example), count has a maximum of 30, and page is a page number. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 states a specific action ('查看' / view) and a precise resource ('某位雪球用户的发帖动态' / a particular XUEQIU user's post activity), and even adds a use case ('用于跟踪特定作者的观点' / for tracking a specific author's opinions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post (single post) and search_posts (keyword search).

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 identifies the purpose: tracking a specific author's views, which tells an agent when to use this tool over generic search or post retrieval. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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