回复用户评论

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

The description discloses that the reply is public and requires user confirmation before calling, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false). It does not contradict the annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether replies can be edited later, but the schema covers the update parameter. Overall, it adds meaningful context about the public nature and the need for confirmation.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include the critical pre-call instruction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a mutating tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or the differences between creating a new reply, replying to a nested reply (toReplyId), or updating an existing reply (updateReplyId). The schema covers these, but the description is minimal and leaves room for an agent to misunderstand the nuances. It is adequate but lacks deeper context.

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 provides descriptions for 78% of the parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: publicly replying to user comments or to a user's follow-up reply, as a developer. It specifies the action (回复) and the resource (用户评论/追加回复), and distinguishes it from read-only review tools like agc_list_reviews. The visibility condition (回复会对所有用户可见) adds clarity.

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 includes a pre-call guideline (确认回复内容 with the user) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there is no sibling tool for replying, it is not a major gap, but the guidance is minimal and does not address conditions like when to use updateReplyId or toReplyId.

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