浏览北邮人论坛版面

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it uses a locally saved forum session and does not expose credentials to the agent. This is security-relevant information beyond what the schema or annotations provide, and it does not contradict readOnlyHint.

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 compact sentence, and each clause earns its place: the first states the action and scope, the second adds a credential-safety guarantee. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description covers the essential security and scope context: one page, local session, no credential exposure. Minor gaps like pagination limits or error behavior are acceptable given the schema and annotations.

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 page and board are already documented in the input schema. The description's reference to '一页' loosely aligns with the page parameter but adds no additional format, constraints, or parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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 action, '读取一页版面目录' (read one page of a board directory), which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_thread or search_posts by focusing on '版面目录', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when reading a single page of a board directory. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the sibling tools or criteria for choosing among them.

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