阅读 CC98 帖子

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: pagination via next, offset semantics, and raw-vs-rendered output. It still says nothing about default page size, limits, or return shape.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read and why; the link/offset nuance and continuation cue follow logically. Slightly dense packing of offset semantics, but no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema and the description mentions a next field without explaining the return payload; it also leaves three of six input parameters unexplained. Adequate for a read tool but not complete given the 0% schema coverage.

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, and it explains only 3 of 6 parameters (topic accepts ID or link, from is a 0-based floor offset defaulting to the link position, format raw). size, content_offset, and max_characters remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, which matters for pagination.

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+resource (读取主题和指定楼层) and adds a disambiguating purpose (核对搜索证据) that separates it from the sibling search tools. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Frames the tool as a follow-up to searching (用于核对搜索证据) and explains continuation via next, which is clear usage context. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to cc98_search vs cc98_search_results.

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