zhihu_list_comments

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the safe read-only nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: how pagination works (cursor, next_cursor, has_more), and that only top-level comments are returned. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the annotation lowers this burden.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence carries necessary information. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key usage complexity: pagination protocol, stopping condition, and the distinction between first-level and nested comments. It could have briefly described the overall response shape, but it does mention next_cursor and has_more, which covers the essential return guidance.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the cursor relationship (return next_cursor from previous page) and the '首页不传 cursor' rule, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. The limit and url semantics are already in the schema.

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 a specific action ('分页读取' - paginated read) on a specific resource ('知乎想法或专栏文章的一级评论' - first-level comments on Zhihu ideas or column articles). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'zhihu_list_replies' by explicitly noting that nested replies belong to that tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: use for first-level comments, and use zhihu_list_replies for '楼中楼回复' (nested replies). Pagination usage is clearly specified with instructions about cursor: '首页不传 cursor；用返回的 next_cursor 取下一页，has_more=false 表示读完.'

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