浏览编程题库

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: page-load timeouts, network failure handling, and the empty-result fallback, which tell the agent how failures manifest.

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/Error Handling sections. The Args block duplicates the schema, which is mild waste, but overall structure is tight and scannable.

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 the description compensates by describing the returned fields (ID, title, difficulty, pass rate, tags). Combined with the annotation coverage of safety behavior, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though sibling differentiation remains missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the 'Args' block largely restates them. The examples do add some combinatorial meaning (e.g., keyword + response_format=json), but the difficulty scale and defaults are already in the schema, so this stays at the baseline.

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 (列出) and resource (牛客网 ACM/OJ 编程题目) plus the filtering dimensions (keyword, difficulty). However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling nowcoder_search or nowcoder_list_topic_problems, which an agent could easily confuse with this list operation.

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 through the examples (browse all, filter by difficulty, keyword search with JSON), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to the alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is the generic listing tool versus the topic-scoped or search siblings.

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