list_topic_blogger_contents

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully discloses auth requirement ('需要 topic.blogger.read scope') and output data shape ('摘要，不含原文'), but omits pagination behavior (items per page), read-only safety guarantees, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely compact single sentence with parenthetical clarification. Every clause earns its place: action clause, output specification, and permission requirement. No redundancy or filler text.

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?

Appropriate for a 3-parameter list operation with simple types. Without output schema, description adequately specifies return format (summary list). Only minor gap is lack of pagination metadata disclosure (e.g., default page size).

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds critical semantic context not in schema: the required OAuth scope ('topic.blogger.read'). It also clarifies the content type returned, helping contextualize why the parameters (topic_id, follow_id) are needed.

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?

Description uses specific verb '获取' (get/fetch) with clear resource '内容列表' (content list) and distinguishes from sibling get_blogger_content_detail by specifying it returns only '摘要，不含原文' (summaries without original text). Clearly scoped to a specific blogger within a knowledgeBase.

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?

Implies usage context by specifying output is summaries not full text (guiding choice vs get_blogger_content_detail), but does not explicitly state workflow prerequisites like 'use list_topic_bloggers first to obtain follow_id' - that reference exists only in the schema, not the description. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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