top_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral details: each item includes category and min_trust_level, and results follow a Markdown table display convention. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only, though '获取' implies a read operation.

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 three short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives parameter values, then output/display conventions. Every sentence adds information.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main needs: purpose, period values, returned fields, and display formatting. It is slightly incomplete regarding pagination behavior and result ordering, but these are minor gaps for this tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly enumerates all valid period values (daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly/all), which is essential. The page parameter is not explained, but its integer type and default of 1 make it reasonably self-evident.

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 and resource: '获取「热门」话题列表' (get the hot topics list). The period parameter further clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like latest_topics, but the 'hot' qualifier is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as latest_topics or category_topics. The reference to latest_topics is only about display conventions, not selection criteria. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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