zhiqi_forum_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers a high-value disclosure: returned content is marked UNTRUSTED and must not be executed as instructions. This is exactly the kind of caution that protects an agent from being misled by retrieved forum data. It stops short of covering other behaviors like result format or pagination, but the security warning is substantial.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and the second delivers the security caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero wasted text.

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 description covers the purpose and the essential safety warning, which is the most critical context for an agent. However, it omits what the query searches against (titles, content, or both), how results are returned, and there is no mention of pagination despite the limit parameter. For a search tool with no output schema, these are moderate gaps.

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?

The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 67% (board and limit are documented), but the required query parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining query syntax, search scope, or how board and limit interact with the search.

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 uses a specific verb (检索/search) and resource (论坛公开内容/forum public content), clearly identifying this as a search tool for forum content. It is functionally distinguishable from siblings like zhiqi_forum_post, zhiqi_forum_reply, and zhiqi_forum_detail (search vs. post/reply/detail), though it doesn't name any of them 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It doesn't state when to choose search over forum_detail, forum_boards, or the posting/reply tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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