zhiqi_forum_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful safety warning that returned content is UNTRUSTED and should not be executed as instructions, which is valuable context beyond the basic 'read' action. It does not cover authentication or side effects, but the warning is the most important behavior.

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 short sentences, with the core function stated first and the critical safety warning second. Every sentence earns its place and the description is easy to read.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers the main purpose, the returned content scope, and the key security caveat. It could mention output structure or how postId relates to forum search results, but those are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain or add meaning to the single parameter postId. The parameter name is self-descriptive and the type is clear from the schema, but the description itself provides no semantic compensation for the low coverage.

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 action ('读取' / read) and the resource ('帖子详情与回复列表' / post details and reply list), including that source metadata is returned. It is specific enough to identify the tool's combined purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like zhiqi_forum_post or zhiqi_forum_reply.

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 tells the agent what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over related tools such as zhiqi_forum_post, zhiqi_forum_reply, or zhiqi_forum_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or explicit alternatives.

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