qzone_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully declares read-only behavior and describes the return structure (author/time/content plus nested 楼中楼 replies), but says nothing about failure modes, pagination termination, or whether target_uin is needed for other users' posts — that caveat lives only in the schema.

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?

A single compact block of clauses with zero wasted wording. The read-only marker, the tid dependency, and the pagination capability are all front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 description correctly fills in the return shape (per-comment author/time/content and nested replies) and explains pagination. It stops short of the error behavior documented only in the schema, but is otherwise adequate for this four-parameter read tool.

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%, so every parameter including tid, pos, num, and target_uin is already documented. The description only restates the tid source and pagination idea, adding essentially no new parameter meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (读取某条说说下面的评论), marks it read-only (只读), and points to qzone_see_posts as the source of tid. This lets it be distinguished from the write-side sibling qzone_comment, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 clear operating context: tid comes from qzone_see_posts, and pos/num enable pagination. It does not state when to use this instead of qzone_comment when the user wants to post, so the guidance covers only the read path and lacks explicit exclusions.

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