xiaohongshu-prohibited-word

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only names the action and input. It does not disclose the output format (e.g., list of offending words vs pass/fail status), limits, or any other behavioral details an agent would need to handle the result correctly.

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 concise sentence with the key action and target front-loaded. It loses one point for slight redundancy between '违禁词检测' and '检查...违规词', but it contains no filler.

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 tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter, and the description covers the input scope. However, since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate what kind of result is returned. The missing return-value information is a clear but not severe gap.

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 schema already describes the only parameter `content` with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to this parameter by saying '笔记文案', but it adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 specific action (检测/检查) on a specific resource (小红书笔记文案), making it clear this tool detects prohibited words in Xiaohongshu note copy. This also distinguishes it from sibling platform-specific checkers like douyin-prohibited-word and wechat-prohibited-word.

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 intended scenario is implied: use it when checking Xiaohongshu note copy for banned words. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as multi-wordcheck or the other platform-specific prohibited-word tools, nor any exclusions.

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