获取讨论帖详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates what the result contains (title, author, time, body, tags, link) and documents failure modes (page-load timeout, network failure). No rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by clearly labeled Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling sections; no sentence is wasted. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the examples repeat the same call twice with only the format changed.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents and error behavior, which is what an agent needs. It omits any mention of very long posts or truncation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% and the schema already documents accepted URL/ID formats and the response_format enum with default. The description's concrete example strings are helpful but largely restate the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: retrieve the full content of a Nowcoder discussion post or feed item. The scope ('完整内容') and the object ('讨论帖或动态') are clear, and it is naturally distinct from siblings like nowcoder_search or nowcoder_get_problem. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the examples, which show when to call it (fetch one post's detail). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over nowcoder_search or nowcoder_get_hot_topics, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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