getCommentList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the schema requirement for token and userAgent, adding no information about side effects, pagination, ordering, or error handling. This does not exceed the schema's structured data.

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 concise sentence that is not verbose or poorly structured. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, which slightly reduces efficiency in conveying purpose.

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 has four required parameters and no output schema, yet the description offers minimal context. It does not explain the type of comments, the user scope, pagination behavior, or potential use cases relative to sibling tools, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions token and user请求头, which are already documented in the schema, and adds no additional semantic value for offset or limit.

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 states the tool gets a comment list ('获取用户的评论列表'), which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not specify whose comments (current user vs. a specific user) and does not differentiate it from the sibling tool getMapCommentListByUserId. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 getMapCommentListByUserId or getLikeList. It only mentions authentication requirements, which is a prerequisite, not a usage context.

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