Retrieve platform-specific scoring rubrics and fatal anti-patterns to check social posts before publishing; each issue deducts 20 points, and posts below 80 should not be published.
获取指定平台（小红书 / Twitter / Reddit / 掘金）的说说型发帖扣分清单（Rubric）与致命反模式。发布前逐条对照，每项扣 20 分，低于 80 分不得发布。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes | 目标平台：xiaohongshu(小红书) | twitter(X) | reddit | juejin(掘金) | all(全部平台) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (rubric plus fatal anti-patterns) and how scoring works (each issue deducts 20 points, below 80 means do not publish), which is useful decision context, though it does not state read-only status or authorization requirements.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose and followed by the operational rule. There is no unnecessary wording.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and the scoring threshold. It could be slightly more explicit about response structure, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.
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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description lists most platforms but adds no syntax or selection meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the writing rubric (扣分清单) and fatal anti-patterns for a specified platform. It is clearly a rubric-fetching tool, not a linter or composer, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: check item by item before publishing, and do not publish if the score is below 80. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as writing_lint, but the pre-publication context is concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.