xhs_get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 short with the purpose stated first, followed by parameter details. It is efficient without unnecessary fluff, though the Args format could be slightly more streamlined.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the parameter but does not mention expected output structure (e.g., that it includes both note details and comments). This is minimally sufficient but leaves some uncertainty.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explicitly providing the URL format and an example, adding meaning that the schema alone lacks. This helps the agent correctly construct the parameter.

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 fetches note details and comments from Xiaohongshu, using the verb '获取' (get) and specifying the resource. It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like xhs_search or xhs_user_profile.

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 provides a concrete parameter example with URL format, aiding correct invocation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the user wants a specific note versus searching.

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