parse_xhs_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes key behaviors: automatic type detection (video/image), fallback to generic parsing on failure, output format requirements (pure text with specific fields), and instructions to preserve full content without truncation. This covers operational traits beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It front-loads the core purpose but includes extensive formatting instructions in the middle, which could be separated. Some sentences, like the note about Douyin's caption field, are relevant but slightly disrupt flow. Overall, it's clear but could be 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 tool's complexity (parsing, type detection, fallback logic) and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and output handling. With an output schema present, it appropriately focuses on operational details rather than return value specifics, making it complete for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'share_link' as '小红书分享链接或包含链接的文本' (Xiaohongshu share link or text containing a link), adding semantic context about acceptable input formats. However, it does not detail constraints like link validation or examples, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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's purpose: '解析小红书分享链接，自动识别视频或图文类型并返回无水印资源' (Parse Xiaohongshu share links, automatically identify video or graphic types and return watermark-free resources). It specifies the verb ('parse'), resource ('Xiaohongshu share links'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Xiaohongshu specifically, unlike generic or Douyin-focused tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for parsing Xiaohongshu links to extract resources. It implies alternatives by mentioning '若专用解析失败，将自动尝试 generic 兜底逻辑' (if dedicated parsing fails, it will automatically try generic fallback logic), which suggests generic_link as a fallback, but does not explicitly name when to choose this tool over siblings like parse_douyin_link or extract_douyin_text. No explicit exclusions are provided.

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