歌单详情

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 openWorldHint=true，因此安全概况已覆盖。描述只补充了分页能力，没有补充鉴权需求、私有歌单是否可见，或返回结构。

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?

两句话，信息前置，没有填充内容。排行榜的说明虽然简短，但为了简洁而牺牲了一部分精确性。

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?

结合完整参数文档和 readOnly/openWorld 注解，描述已足以用于正常路径。但排行榜使用场景、私有歌单的鉴权需求，以及它与 get_toplists 如何分工，都未说明。

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 描述覆盖率为 100%，且已说明全部三个参数，包括 limit 默认值 50、最大值 500 以及 offset 默认值。描述只表达了“支持分页”，没有增加超出 schema 的内容，因此 3 分是合适的基线。

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?

明确的动词+资源组合（“获取歌单信息和其中的歌曲”），并说明支持分页，因此无需打开 schema 就能知道它返回什么。额外提到排行榜可以用这个工具查看，合理扩大了范围，但模糊了它与同类工具 get_toplists 的边界，而不是划清边界。

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?

提到排行榜也可以用这个工具查看，这暗示了一种次要用途；但没有说明何时应改用 get_toplists、当两者都适用时该选哪个，也没有说明账号或可见性前提条件。

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