zhihu_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: pagination support and the need for a login cookie. However, it does not describe behavior on missing/invalid cookies, error handling, rate limits, or pagination specifics beyond the schema. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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-loaded with the core function and requirements, and every sentence provides useful context. No wasted words.

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 is relatively simple and the output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the essential prerequisites (cookie, answer_id source) and pagination capability. It doesn't mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a parameter-light tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra semantic meaning by clarifying that answer_id comes from the 'id' field of type 'answer' items in zhihu_search results, which goes beyond the schema's generic '回答 ID'. This is a meaningful addition.

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 function: '获取知乎回答的评论' (fetch comments for a Zhihu answer), mentions pagination support, and distinguishes from sibling tools like zhihu_answer (which would return the answer itself) by focusing on comments. It also provides a source for the required answer_id.

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 practical usage context: it states that a login cookie is required and that answer_id should originate from zhihu_search results (type 'answer'). This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining an answer_id from search), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where this tool should not be used.

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