澎湃新闻

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states '获取澎湃新闻热榜' (get hot list) without mentioning whether it's read-only, caching behavior (though a noCache parameter exists), rate limits, or data format. This is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single Chinese sentence. While efficient, it lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given two parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain the hot list's content, parameter usage, or limitations, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the 'limit' or 'noCache' parameters. Without parameter documentation, the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw 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 '获取澎湃新闻热榜' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (澎湃新闻热榜 - The Paper hot list). It effectively identifies the tool's purpose but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like weibo or zhihu, which follow similar naming conventions.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving The Paper's hot list but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., weibo for Weibo hot list). No when-not or contextual cues are given.

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