浏览专题题库

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: error behavior for missing topics and page-load timeouts, plus the returned fields (编号、标题、难度、通过率). This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 with the purpose, then Args/Returns/Examples/Error Handling sections that are easy to scan. It is somewhat repetitive, restating parameters and topicIds that already exist in the schema, which costs a little efficiency but not readability.

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 carries return-value disclosure and does so (编号、标题、难度、通过率), and it covers the failure modes. The only gap is the absence of any explicit alternative-tool guidance for an agent choosing among seven siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by expanding the topicId catalogue to ten entries versus the schema's five and clarifying the markdown-vs-json tradeoff in the examples. Page semantics are already covered by the 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 verb (获取) and resource (专题题目列表) and scopes it to a named topic, which implicitly separates it from the generic nowcoder_list_problems. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the topic-scoping makes the boundary inferable.

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 topicId list and the two examples, so an agent can see this is for topic-scoped browsing. However, it never says when to prefer this over nowcoder_list_problems or nowcoder_search, nor does it give exclusions.

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