douyin_comment_replies

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

The only annotation is a title, "某条评论的回复", which supplies no readOnly/destructive signal, so the description carries nearly the full behavioral burden. "展开" implies a read that returns nested content, but the description never states that this is a side-effect-free fetch, whether results are paginated, or how the default count of 20 behaves when more replies exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource being expanded is stated immediately. It is slightly over-compressed: one added clause about read semantics or pagination would cost nothing and close the main gaps.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so the bar is low. Still, an agent deciding whether to call it lacks any statement that it is a non-mutating fetch with a capped reply list, which matters given the count parameter exists.

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%: awemeId, commentId, and count are each documented in the schema, so the description is not required to repeat them. It does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as whether count truncates the reply thread or how awemeId and commentId interact to scope the lookup, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"展开一条评论下的二级回复" names a specific verb (展开), the exact resource (二级回复 / second-level replies), and the anchoring entity (一条评论). An agent can tell this fetches nested replies rather than top-level comments. It stops short of naming the siblings it differs from (douyin_comments, douyin_comments_list), so the differentiation must be inferred from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "展开": you call it when you want the replies hanging under a specific comment. There is no explicit statement of when this beats douyin_comments_list, no prerequisite that a valid commentId must already be obtained from a parent comment listing, and no note about paging or when to increase the count.

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