weibo_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (SUB token) and pagination capability, but does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or response behavior beyond pagination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core function, and packs authentication and parameter provenance into concise, useful phrases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers the key contextual gaps: auth requirement, pagination flow, and how to obtain 'mid'. It could mention error cases or what happens without a valid cookie, but for a simple paginated comments endpoint, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'mid' originates from the 'id' field of items in weibo_search or weibo_user_timeline results, which is not fully captured by the schema's terse '微博帖子 ID' description.

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 '获取微博帖子的评论' (fetch comments of a Weibo post) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like weibo_post (fetches the post itself) and weibo_search (searches posts), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly notes the login cookie (SUB token) requirement and instructs that 'mid' comes from the 'id' field in weibo_search or weibo_user_timeline results. This provides clear prerequisites and data flow context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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