xhs_get_feed_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states what data is returned and that both ID and token are required. However, it does not mention whether authentication is needed (relevant given sibling xhs_login), the exact limit of comments ('前若干条' is vague), or any error/rate-limit behavior.

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 one concise sentence that leads with the purpose, lists the returned fields, and states the prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 detail-fetch tool with two parameters, the description gives a good overview of the return payload and prerequisites. However, it lacks an output schema and does not specify authentication requirements or comment count boundary, leaving some 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that both are mandatory ('两者缺一不可') and points to their origin (search/recommend results), adding marginal value over the 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 clearly states the tool's function: '获取小红书笔记详情' (get note details), and enumerates the returned data (title, body, images, author info, interaction data, comments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, recommend, publish, like, and favorite.

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?

It specifies the required inputs for use: '需要笔记 ID 与 xsecToken（两者缺一不可，从搜索/推荐结果获取）', indicating that this tool is for fetching details after obtaining a note ID via search or recommendation. It clearly implies the context of use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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