查找 CC98 版面

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: empty keyword returns everything and paging is driven by next_offset. It does not say whether next_offset comes from the response or how many results a page yields.

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?

A single compact sentence with the lookup purpose front-loaded and the empty-keyword and paging rules appended. No filler, though the semicolon-dense packing makes the paging clause slightly easy to miss.

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?

Three optional parameters and no output schema; the description covers the lookup intent and one paging cursor but does not describe what a board record contains or confirm that next_offset is returned. Adequate, but a small gap remains for an agent trying to page correctly.

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 explains keyword (empty = list all) and offset-based paging via next_offset, but leaves limit (default 30, max 50) completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (查找) and resource (版面), plus the concrete output (版面 ID) and its downstream purpose (供版内搜索使用). This clearly separates it from the read/search siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives one useful usage rule — an empty keyword lists all boards — and implies it should be called before board-scoped searching. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over cc98_search or how it relates to the other search tools.

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