user_actions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that results include summaries and jump links, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, time range, or how limit affects results. This is a partial but incomplete behavioral picture.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. It lacks structured detail, but it is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: limit semantics, result shape, pagination, and when to choose this over sibling tools. It is sufficient only for a very basic understanding of the call.

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 for parameter meaning. It implicitly maps '某用户' to username, but it never explains the limit parameter, its default, or its effect. The compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取') and a clear resource ('某用户的发帖/回复活动'), and adds return details (摘要与跳转链接). It is distinguishable from siblings like user_info or search, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus user_info, search, or format_topic. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided, so an agent must infer applicability from the tool name and minimal description.

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