Pixiv 作品详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior — the tool computes a 'compliant' verdict using black/graylist rules — but '同一套规则' is undefined, and it never says what a non-compliant result looks like (error vs. a compliant:false field), whether Pixiv auth/refresh tokens are required, or whether rate limits apply.

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 tight sentences: the read-and-return-fields contract is front-loaded and the non-download constraint closes it. No filler, and the returned-field list is compressed rather than enumerated in prose.

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?

With no output schema, the enumerated return fields are exactly the right compensation, and the compliance-verdict behavior is a valuable addition. What's missing is the failure mode for non-compliant works and any auth prerequisite — notable gaps for a tool whose output is a policy decision, but not fatal.

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%, including detailed enum semantics for allow_gray and the conditional meaning of r18, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that lookup is keyed on PID; it adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('按 PID 读取作品元数据') and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, artist, tags, bookmarks, page count, original image URLs, rating. It also explicitly disclaims the download behavior, which cleanly separates it from the pixiv_download sibling.

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 only routing signal is the trailing '不下载', which implicitly points download intent at pixiv_download; it never mentions pixiv_search as the way to obtain a PID in the first place. Some when-to-pass guidance lives in the schema (allow_gray: '只有用户明确点名时才传'), but the description body itself leaves usage to inference.

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