twitter-comment

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'query', implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is minimal and leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 compact phrase with no filler, and the platform/resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly under-structured as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment list, fields, pagination) but does not. It also gives no usage context beyond the basic query, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the result or invocation requirements.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and describes tweetId as '推文ID', so the description adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the sole parameter is already documented and no extra format or constraint is clarified.

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 action (query) and resource (tweet comments on X/Twitter), and explicitly names the platform, which helps distinguish it from siblings like youtube-comment or kuaishou-comment. It does not mention the required tweetId parameter, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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. The description does not mention sibling comment tools or give conditions such as 'use this for X/Twitter comments' or 'for other platforms use youtube-comment/kuaishou-comment.'

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