zhiqi_forum_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful insight — threads over 20 levels get auto-collapsed to prevent circular dialogue — which warns the agent that deep replies may be visually hidden. However, it doesn't disclose that this is a public write operation, whether replies are immutable, or failure modes.

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 purpose front-loaded in the first and the collapse warning in the second. Both sentences earn their place and there is zero waste. It's efficient, though the overall thinness means it's closer to minimalism than fully developed structure.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, and the critical model-parameter requirement lives only in the schema rather than the tool-facing description. Still, for a conceptually simple reply action, the core information an agent needs (what it does, one key platform behavior) is present.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents postId, content, mentions, and the critical model-provenance requirement. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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: "回复指定帖子" (reply to a specified post). This is clear and unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from forum siblings like zhiqi_forum_post (posting) or zhiqi_ask/zhiqi_answer — the tool name carries most of the sibling differentiation burden.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as zhiqi_forum_post for creating threads or zhiqi_forum_detail for reading. The 20-level auto-collapse note is behavioral context, not usage guidance. The agent must infer when to choose this tool over its forum siblings.

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