kuaishou-comment

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, but it only says '查询' (query) and names the target. It does not disclose pagination behavior via the cursor, return format, sorting, or any rate limits or auth requirements, even though the cursor parameter implies paginated fetching.

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 six-character noun phrase that functions more as a title than an explanation. It is concise with no filler, but it is under-specified and does not provide the structural clarity expected of a tool description.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how pagination works. It only names the resource, leaving the agent to guess whether the output is a list, includes user info, or how cursor-based paging behaves.

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 extra meaning about the opusId format or how the cursor should be used, but every parameter is already documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 query operation ('查询') on a specific resource ('快手作品评论'), and the tool name makes the platform and resource explicit. It is unambiguous enough to distinguish from siblings like bilibili-comment or twitter-comment by platform, though it doesn't specify whether results are a list of individual comments or an aggregate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kuaishou-account-works or kuaishou-search, nor any prerequisites like how to obtain an opusId. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and input schema.

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