zhihu_answer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation of fetching text, with no mention of side effects, auth requirements, error behavior, or data limits. This is insufficient for a mutation-free but potentially unauthenticated tool.

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 sentences, each with distinct purpose: first states the tool's action, second links to a sibling tool for parameter sourcing. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: what it does and how to get the required ID. However, lack of behavioral details slightly reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the answer_id originates from zhihu_search results, enhancing the schema's simple '回答 ID' description. This aids correct parameter usage.

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 retrieves the full text of a Zhihu answer using an answer_id. It specifies the resource and action, and references zhihu_search for ID sourcing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zhihu_question_answers or zhihu_comments.

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 guidance on where to obtain the answer_id (from zhihu_search results), implying its use case. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools, offering no exclusions or alternatives.

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