qzone_get_post

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 verb '读取' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of authentication needs, ownership restrictions, error behavior, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal and not misleading, but far from transparent.

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 one-line description is concise and front-loaded, but it is so terse that it under-specifies the tool. It lacks parameter semantics and usage context, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a model of conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of the required parameters, does not state what the response contains, and does not give any context about when this tool is appropriate. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: fid, hostuin, or appid. The required identifiers are completely opaque, so an agent cannot reliably know what values to provide for fid and hostuin. The description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever.

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 and resource: '读取一条说说详情' means read one post's details. This distinguishes it from qzone_list_posts, which implies reading multiple posts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from qzone_status, which could be a similar status-related operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. An agent can only infer that this tool fetches a single post, likely by fid, but no explicit context is given for choosing it over qzone_status or qzone_list_posts.

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