xiaohongshu-rewrite

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 only states that it rewrites copy into Xiaohongshu style, but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether the input text is preserved in meaning, any length or style constraints, or whether the operation has side effects. This is minimal behavioral information for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 sentence with both the core purpose and the trigger condition. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage condition adequately. However, it lacks any description of the expected input source or the return value, and with no annotations to fill the gap, a slight increase in completeness would help the agent invoke it confidently.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds implicit meaning by indicating that the content to rewrite is the user's provided '文案', but it does not explain how that content is supplied given the empty 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 clearly states the action ('rewrite' / '改写') and the target style ('Xiaohongshu style' / '小红书风格'), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'write' tools by being about rewriting rather than creating from scratch, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 a clear usage condition: 'when the user needs to rewrite copy into Xiaohongshu style'. This provides sufficient context for when to select the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as xiaohongshu-write or wechat-rewrite.

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