get_sspai_rank

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it only describes content scope. It omits details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how default/hardcoded behaviors affect results. The agent cannot assess side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and content categories. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from content list) without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of articles with fields). It only describes content types, leaving the agent uninformed about the structure of results. This gap is significant for a tool with many siblings.

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 50%, with only 'tag' having a description ('分类'). The description does not explain 'limit' or clarify the meaning of default values or enum choices. No additional context is provided to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 '获取少数派热榜' (get sspai hot list) and lists content categories, making the tool's purpose specific to retrieving trending content from sspai. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools targeting other platforms.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_zhihu_trending or get_36kr_trending. There is no mention of preferred scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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