想法详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint path and mentions that it returns content, author, comments, and likes, which provides some context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior for comments/likes, how `synckey` affects the response, or whether the tool returns partial data if optional parameters are omitted. These are not critical but could be useful given the complexity of the parameters.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded: it starts with the main purpose (获取单条想法的完整详情), includes the endpoint, and lists the key contents. No filler or redundant information. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only tool with a rich output schema. It states the purpose, and the output schema (though not shown in the context) likely details the return structure, so the description needn't explain return values. However, given the tool has 6 parameters and includes pagination controls (likes_direction, comments_direction), the description could have noted the sorting/pagination behavior to help agents set appropriate parameters. The annotations cover safety, so the main gap is a lack of guidance on parameter usage, but it's not critical for a simple fetch.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it only mentions that it includes comments and likes, which maps to `comments_count` and `likes_count`. The baseline is 3 because the schema handles parameter semantics well, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '单条想法的完整详情' (single review's complete details), including the endpoint path `/review/single`. It lists the key contents (内容、作者、评论与点赞), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like `get_my_reviews` that list multiple reviews. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is not the same as listing reviews, so it slightly lacks sibling differentiation beyond the singular vs plural framing.

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 usage when a single review's detail is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like `get_my_reviews` or `get_best_highlights`. It provides no exclusions or conditions. The 'single' in the description and the fact that it requires a `review_id` hint at the use case, but that guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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