获取资讯流

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the feed semantics and filtering behavior but does not disclose extra traits such as ordering, pagination, or data freshness; this is acceptable given the annotations and output schema.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists all relevant category options. Every word contributes value and there is no redundant or filler 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 simple read-only feed tool with two optional parameters, a full output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers what the tool does and how filtering works. No critical information is missing.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for both count and category. The description restates the category options in prose but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('获取') and resource ('雪球资讯Feed流'), and specifies the filterable categories. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_hot_posts because it explicitly focuses on the news feed rather than posts or user-generated content.

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 tool's purpose obvious: use it when a news feed is needed, with supported category filters. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among siblings, most of which are about posts, users, quotes, or watchlists rather than news.

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