qzone_list_posts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the hostuin behavior (friend feed vs. individual space) but omits any mention of pagination (limit/cursor), ordering, authentication, or rate limits. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the key parameter behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it covers the core behavior but misses essential details about limit/cursor semantics and what the response contains. An agent might make incorrect assumptions about pagination and result shape, so completeness is only adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains hostuin explicitly but says nothing about limit (number of posts) or cursor (pagination token). These are left to inference, leaving 2 of 3 parameters undocumented.

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?

Clear verb '读取' (read) and resource 'QQ空间动态' (QQ Space posts), with explicit distinction between friend feed (hostuin=0) and a specific user's space. This differentiates it from siblings like qzone_get_post and qzone_status, which likely target single posts or statuses.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use each hostuin mode (0 for friend feed, otherwise a specific QQ). It implies this is the tool for listing posts rather than publishing or liking, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use qzone_get_post for a single post').

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