zhiqi_subscribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an authentication requirement and a channel restriction, but does not state the core side effect (that a subscription is created), whether it is reversible, or what the response indicates. This is minimal transparency for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence, tightly written, and front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff, but its brevity sacrifices important behavioral and parameter details.

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, no annotations, and one parameter, the description gives only the purpose and an auth prerequisite. It omits expected return behavior, error conditions, and whether the subscription is persistent. An agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that postId refers to a post ('订阅帖子'), without explaining how to obtain it, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type. This adds marginal meaning but does not fully document the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('订阅' / subscribe) and resource ('帖子' / post), which distinguishes it from siblings like zhiqi_unsubscribe and zhiqi_subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast, so it falls short of the strongest 5-level differentiation.

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 a prerequisite (human login channel A, local userToken) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like zhiqi_unsubscribe or zhiqi_subscriptions. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context beyond the auth constraint.

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