知乎日报

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose but omits any traits like whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The agent learns nothing about side effects or safety.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is underspecified and does not efficiently convey necessary details. It earns its place but could be improved by expanding with key behavioral notes.

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 the tool has no output schema and two optional parameters, the description should explain the return format or any important context. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent without complete understanding of the tool's functionality.

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 0% (no descriptions for 'limit' or 'noCache'). The description does not explain these parameters, so the agent must infer meaning from names alone. 'limit' and 'noCache' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 '获取知乎日报推荐' clearly indicates the tool retrieves Zhihu Daily recommendations. It specifies the verb (获取/get) and resource (知乎日报推荐/Zhihu Daily recommendation). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'zhihu' which may have similar functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zhihu'. There is no mention of preferred contexts, limitations, or exclusions.

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