校验文章真实状态

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses that the tool is read-only, modifies nothing, requires two signals (interface status and HTTP code) to avoid misjudgments, and notes the failure modes of relying on only one signal. This is rich behavioral context beyond the bare tool name and schema.

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 compact and information-dense: three sentences cover purpose, verification logic, read-only nature, and usage trade-offs. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description provides a strong operating picture: what it checks, why both signals matter, what happens when expected is omitted, and when it is unnecessary. The main omission is the exact return/output format, but an agent can likely infer the result from the verification purpose.

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 does clarify that 'expected' is optional and that when omitted the tool infers based on current state, but it does not fully explain the semantic meaning of 'expected' (e.g., expected status used for comparison). 'article_id' is trivially inferable as the article identifier, but the description adds little parameter-specific detail.

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 ('回查'/verify), a clear resource (a single article), and a concrete method (CSDN interface status + public page HTTP code). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explaining that publish_article and update_article already perform self-checks, so this tool is supplemental rather than required.

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 explicitly explains when not to use the tool: publish_article and update_article already default to self-checking, and repeated verification only wastes two requests. It also identifies the alternatives by name and clarifies the trade-off, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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