评论

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — the first page also returns hot comments — but says nothing about pagination interaction with that extra data or about 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the scope (resource types) front-loaded before the behavioral note.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a comment record contains and whether hot comments count toward limit. For a simple read tool with a fully documented schema this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, limit, offset, resource_type) are already documented. The description's only additive note is that page one bundles hot comments, which hints at how offset/limit behave but stops short of explaining it.

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 (获取) and resource (评论) plus the four resource types it applies to, which lets an agent distinguish it from all siblings (none of which deal with comments). It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, but no confusable alternative exists.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource types listed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. An agent can infer the context but is not guided.

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