抓取评价接口模板

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the main side effect (saving a template file) and the fact it drives a browser, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing templates, requires specific permissions, or has any rate-limit implications. For a debugging tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent about file modifications.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with '调试用' (for debugging), then states the action and the automatic alternative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 niche debugging tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, the fact that it's rarely needed, and the relation to pdd_reviews_list. It doesn't detail the exact browser interaction, but that is not necessary for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 schema description for the single 'shop' parameter is 100% covered, explaining the shop name mapping to config/shops.json and the default behavior when omitted. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it drives the browser to open evaluation management pages, captures the /saturn/reviews/list request body, and saves it as a template. It also notes that pdd_reviews_list does this automatically on first use, distinguishing it as a debugging fallback. This is specific and avoids confusion with sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says '一般无需手动调' (generally no need to call manually) and mentions that pdd_reviews_list performs the action automatically, which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state the condition for manual use (e.g., debugging failures) or list alternatives beyond pdd_reviews_list. Still, the guidance is clear enough.

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