douyin-ai-feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the automated daily scan, the selection criteria (interaction metrics), and the output form (HTML daily report with cover images and data metrics). However, it leaves ambiguity about what happens on invocation—whether it returns a report or sets up a subscription—and does not cover side effects or prerequisites.

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 packs core capabilities (scan, filter, cluster, generate HTML report) efficiently, the second lists trigger phrases. No redundant wording or irrelevant detail.

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 explains the core deliverable (HTML daily report) and the selection logic, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important call semantics unclear. For instance, it does not specify whether the tool returns the report directly or whether the '每日订阅' feature is activated automatically. The roles of pageNum/pageSize also remain vague, making the description incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, but the descriptions are just parameter names ('keyword', 'pageNum', 'pageSize') without added meaning. The tool description implies keyword refers to the AI topic being scanned, but it does not clarify how pageNum and pageSize affect the report. Since the high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3 and the description adds only marginal parametric nuance, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific function: scanning Douyin AI-related content daily, ranking by engagement, clustering, and generating an HTML report. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like douyin-search or douyin-daily-hot. The resource (Douyin AI works) and the action (scan/filter/cluster/generate report) are both explicit.

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 gives concrete triggers: '当用户需要 AI 抖音日报、抖音AI热点、AI抖音内容、抖音信息源、douyin ai feed 时使用.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like douyin-daily-hot for general Douyin hot content, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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