get_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output is Markdown, explains question URLs return merged fulltext of all answers, and discloses an important URL-format/risk-control nuance. Minor omission: the schema mentions '想法' (plans/ideas) URLs, but the description only lists answer/article/question, creating slight ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded; each sentence contributes: purpose, behavior, and a critical URL-format warning. No filler or duplicated schema 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers input types, processing behavior, output format, and a usage caveat. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning 想法-URL handling and any error/rate-limit behavior, but the key decision-impacting context is present.

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 already describes 'url' as covering Zhihu content URL types, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful beyond-schema detail: auto-detection of content type, exact behavior for different URL forms, and which answer URL format is recommended to avoid HTTP-blocking, adding enough value to rate above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full Markdown body of a Zhihu answer/article/question, with specific verb '获取' and resource '知乎回答/文章/问题'. It differentiates from sibling search and comment tools by focusing on full-text retrieval rather than discovery or comment fetching.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: '传入 URL 即可' and auto-detects content type, with a precise URL format caveat for answers to avoid risk-control issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search tools or get_comments, but the purpose is clear enough that when to use it is implied.

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