获取用户原创文章

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the filtering behavior '不含转发', which is useful context beyond annotations and schema, but discloses nothing else (return format and pagination limits are covered by output schema/schema). This mirrors the get_calls calibration where a scoping constraint on top of safety annotations warranted a 3.

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 sentences with zero waste: the core function and scope exclusion are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by giving a concrete usage context. No redundant restatement of schema or annotations.

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 read-only paginated list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and use case, while annotations carry the safety profile and the schema/output schema carry parameter and return details. The only notable gap is that sibling disambiguation (when to choose get_user_posts over this tool) is implicit rather than explicit, so the guidance is slightly incomplete.

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% — page, count, and user_id each carry type, constraints, defaults, and descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: '获取指定雪球用户的原创文章', and adds a scope exclusion '不含转发' that distinguishes it from the sibling get_user_posts, which presumably returns all posts including reposts. An agent can tell this tool apart from its nearest sibling without opening the schema.

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 second sentence '适合追踪大V的深度分析和长文' gives a clear use case (tracking deep analysis and long-form articles of influential users), which implies when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., get_user_posts) or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the sibling distinction implicit rather than explicit.

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