list_topic_bloggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the authorization requirement (scope), but does not address pagination limits (despite the 'page' parameter), read-only safety, or error behaviors (e.g., invalid topic_id). It meets minimum viable disclosure but lacks richness.

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 optimally concise: two clauses totaling roughly 20 characters that immediately state the purpose followed by the authorization requirement. Zero redundancy; every element 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 list operation with two flat parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, gaps remain: it omits what constitutes a 'blogger' object, pagination page-size limits, and how this relates to list_topic_blogger_contents.

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 100%, with topic_id clearly documented as an alias from list_topics and page documented with default behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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 (获取/get) and resource (博主列表/blogger list) scoped to a knowledge base (知识库). It identifies what the tool retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_topic_blogger_contents which retrieves content rather than the bloggers themselves.

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 a concrete authorization prerequisite (需要 topic.blogger.read scope), indicating when the tool can be invoked. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar list operations or any workflow prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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