douyin_comments_list

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

The only annotation is a title, so the description carries most of the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that it works on works not owned by the caller and that the results contain comment IDs, but says nothing about ordering, whether replies are included, pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, or any limits on count.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the read scope comes first and the workflow cue follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is close to adequate and even hints at the return value (comment IDs). However, with crowded siblings named douyin_comments and douyin_comment_replies, leaving the relationship unexplained leaves a real selection gap.

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%, so all three parameters (target, count, cursor) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the mild note that target may be any work, mine or someone else's, and adds nothing about cursor semantics or count limits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read comments on any work, including works owned by others, so the ownership scope is explicit. It is not distinguished from the sibling douyin_comments (or douyin_comment_replies), whose names suggest overlapping functionality, so an agent cannot tell from this text which one to pick.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition rule: call this first to obtain the comment ID before replying to a comment, which clearly ties it to douyin_comment_publish. It offers no guidance on when to prefer it over douyin_comments or douyin_comment_replies, so the near-duplicate siblings remain ambiguous.

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