Fetch paginated comments for a material, sorted by oldest, newest, or highest likes, to review discussion and feedback.
分页读取资料评论；sort=old/new/like（最早/最新/最热）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，从 1 开始 | |
| sort | No | old | |
| page_size | No | 每页条数，最多 100 | |
| material_id | Yes | 平台对象 ID，正整数 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated; it says nothing about ordering defaults, empty-result behavior, or visibility/auth constraints that the annotations don't cover.
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?
A single compact clause: pagination behavior first, then the sort vocabulary. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing is wasted.
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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and the sort enum now explained, the definition is nearly complete. It leaves a minor ambiguity about whether the listing includes reply comments (a sibling handles replies) but otherwise covers what an agent needs.
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 75%, and the one gap is the `sort` enum, which has no per-value description in the schema. The description fills exactly that gap by mapping old/new/like to 最早/最新/最热, adding real meaning beyond the structured fields.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('分页读取资料评论'), making it clear this is a paginated read of a material's comments. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling share_list_comment_replies, but the object (资料评论 vs replies) is implied well enough.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for listing comments on a given material. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of share_list_comment_replies as the alternative for reply threads, and no stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.