点赞

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint by recommending 1-10 like counts, but it does not disclose possible rate limits, side effects, or error behavior beyond that.

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 the recommended count placed in parentheses. Every word contributes, and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the description combined with annotations and full schema coverage is mostly sufficient. It lacks only minor details such as expected return value or failure behavior, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 100%, with both user_id and times already described in the schema. The description adds only the recommended range for times, which is mild extra value but does not significantly expand parameter understanding.

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 '给指定QQ点赞' clearly states the action (sending a like) and the targeted resource (a specific QQ account). This is specific enough to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like send_poke, which performs a different gesture.

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 the use case: liking a specified QQ user. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or competing sibling actions such as send_poke.

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