talk_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via '读取' but does not explicitly declare non-destructiveness. It does note that permission approvals cannot be handled here, which is a useful limitation. However, it omits any description of return format, pagination, or side effects, leaving the agent partially in the dark.

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role and constraints, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description fails to explain the parameter and does not describe what the returned data looks like or how to distinguish questions from permission requests. While it gives some follow-up actions, the missing parameter semantics and output details make it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter 'alias' is required but completely unexplained. The schema provides only a pattern with no semantic hint, and the description never mentions the parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent cannot infer what alias refers to (e.g., a workspace alias, a question ID).

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 (读取/read) and the resource (DSH 的普通问题和权限请求 – regular questions and permission requests). It distinguishes the tool from talk_answer (which answers questions) but does not explicitly contrast it with the generic talk_read sibling, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 offers some follow-up guidance: normal questions can be answered with talk_answer, and permission approvals must be handled in DSH Web. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of talk_read or other read tools, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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