查看安全与能力边界

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral boundaries beyond that flag: '不会访问小红书或修改数据'. This gives additional assurance about external access and side-effect absence. The description is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful context, though not extensive detail about response format.

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, front-loaded sentence: it first states the purpose, then the read-only condition, then the key negative guarantee about not accessing Xiaohongshu or modifying data. There is no filler or repetition of annotation/schema content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description covers the essential decision factors: purpose, scope, and data-safety guarantees. It does not explicitly describe the exact return shape, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the promise to explain whether the service is in read-only mode is sufficiently clear for an agent to know what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is not expected to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly adds no unnecessary param-related details.

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 states a specific communicative purpose: it explains what the service will and will not do, and whether it is in read-only mode. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are content operations like submit_for_review or update_draft, making it an introspective rather than data-modifying tool.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this tool when you need to know service capabilities, boundaries, or the current read-only status. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves a similar introspective role, so the implied usage is unambiguous.

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