get_trending_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a config file, operates in two modes (daily and current), and returns a JSON list. It is clear about the read-only nature and data source, though it omits details like sorting or pagination.

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 multi-paragraph but well-structured with a note, Args, and Returns sections. It is slightly verbose for a simple tool, but the structure aids readability.

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 description covers the data source, behavior, parameters, and return format. Given the available output schema, it is mostly complete, though some behavioral details (e.g., sorting) are missing.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: top_n (default 10, return top N) and mode (daily or current, default current). This adds complete meaning beyond 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 the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '个人关注词的新闻出现频率统计'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from auto-extracting hot topics, which differentiates it from siblings like 'analyze_topic_trend'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: it is for counting user-defined keywords from a config file, not for automatic hotspot extraction. It also explains how to customize the config file, offering clear context.

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