读取北邮人论坛主题

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true，描述也以“读取”明确这是只读操作，二者一致。描述额外补充了返回内容构成（正文、楼层、作者、附件），并隐含分页读取行为，增加了注解之外的可预期信息。

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?

描述为一句紧凑的句子，先说明调用方式，再说明返回内容，没有冗余信息，信息密度高且易于快速理解。

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?

对于 4 个参数、只读注解和输出 schema 已存在的工具，描述已覆盖核心调用条件和返回内容。虽然未提及错误场景或与兄弟工具的边界，但结合 schema 与注解已足够支撑正确调用。

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?

输入 schema 的参数描述覆盖率为 100%，board、thread_id、page、max_chars_per_post 都已有说明。描述本身没有为参数提供超出 schema 的额外语义，因此按高覆盖率基准评为 3 分。

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?

描述明确说明了操作对象（按版面名和主题 ID 读取主题页）和返回内容（正文、楼层、作者信息、附件链接），与 get_board、get_top10 等兄弟工具区分度高，代理无需打开 schema 即可理解工具用途。

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?

描述给出了明确的使用条件：需要提供英文版面名和主题 ID，并可选页码。虽然没有显式说明何时不应使用本工具或推荐其他兄弟工具，但使用场景已经足够清晰。

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