浏览面经

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: timeout behavior, network-failure messaging, and the empty-result case with advice to change keywords, which is useful operational detail.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns/Examples/Error Handling structure is easy to scan. The three usage examples largely repeat the schema defaults and could be trimmed, but nothing is bloated.

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 output schema, the description does list the returned fields (标题、公司、作者、摘要、时间) and covers failure modes, both required for an agent to interpret results. Missing only pagination/end-of-list behavior for the page parameter.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum for response_format. The description restates them with examples but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 (浏览牛客网面试经验) with the key filter (按公司名筛选), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like nowcoder_search or nowcoder_get_discussion, which is the only gap.

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 examples show how to call it, but nothing states when to prefer this over nowcoder_search or nowcoder_get_discussion, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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