qzone_see_posts

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, the whitelist authorization requirement on target_uin, and the returned fields (tid, 正文摘要, 图片数, 评论数, 总条数). It omits failure behavior when the account is outside the whitelist and any rate/ordering caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then return values, then the hard constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and flags the whitelist gate, so an agent can call it without guessing. Only the behavior on a non-whitelisted target_uin and any ordering/paging nuance are unstated.

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, but the description adds a genuine operational constraint not present in the schema: target_uin must be in the whitelist. The num parameter's semantics (default 3, max 5) are left entirely to 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 ("查看某个 QQ 号的最新说说") plus the read-only nature, which is clearly distinct from siblings like qzone_publish or qzone_like. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 parenthetical "（只读）" and the note that the returned tid is what 评论/点赞 need imply this is the discovery step before qzone_comment/qzone_like. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given, and the whitelist prerequisite is stated as a constraint rather than as guidance on what to do if it fails.

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