获取热门内容

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding behavior beyond the annotations: the return shape (max 20 items, title + link) and explicit error paths (timeout, network failure, empty results). It does not explain caching or rate limits, so it stops short of 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, then clearly labeled Returns/Examples/Error Handling sections — easy to scan. Slightly padded (the Examples line mostly repeats the no-parameter fact already stated), but no meaningful waste.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, specifying item count, fields, and failure modes. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results; only pagination/staleness of 'hot' data is unaddressed.

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 and the description confirms no input is required ("无需参数，直接调用即可"). With no parameters to document, the baseline 4 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: fetching Nowcoder's current hot discussions and topics. An agent can tell this apart conceptually from list_problems or search, but the description never actually names or differentiates any sibling tool. Clear purpose, no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

"无需参数，直接调用即可" addresses invocation, not selection — it never says when to prefer this over nowcoder_get_discussion, nowcoder_search, or nowcoder_browse_interview. No alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance.

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