kuaishou-account-works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word '查询' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about response structure, pagination caps, accepted ID format, authentication needs, or what fields a '作品' item contains. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the query intent.

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?

A single eight-character clause with zero filler; the action and target are front-loaded and immediately scannable. It is appropriately compact for a simple paginated list query, though slightly more structure (e.g., a note on output or usage context) would have cost little.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description bears extra responsibility, and it only states that a works list is returned without describing its shape. For a simple 3-parameter paginated query with fully documented params, this is near-adequate for invoking the tool, but it leaves open how to source the userId and what the returned list contains.

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%, with page, size, and userId all documented in the schema. The description's '按账号' merely restates the userId concept and adds the 'list' interpretation, but contributes no format, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '快手账号作品查询，按账号查询作品列表' states a specific query action and a clear resource (a Kuaishou account's works list), going beyond a restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like kuaishou-accounts or kuaishou-video-extract, but the '按账号查询作品列表' phrasing makes the core scope unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria or prerequisites. With four Kuaishou-related siblings (kuaishou-accounts, kuaishou-search, kuaishou-comment, kuaishou-video-extract), an agent is left to infer the selection rationale, and there is no hint about how to obtain the required userId.

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