publish-answer

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., posting or modifying content), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The schema hints at auto-selection for AI-generated content, but the description itself provides no behavioral context.

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 extremely short (two words in each language), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to include essential information, and the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the workflow, return behavior, or preconditions, leaving the agent with no contextual understanding.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '发布回答, publish answer' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name in Chinese and English. It does not specify what publishing an answer entails, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-hot-question' or 'scrape-webpage'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the user must be logged in or that the 'url' should correspond to a question page. The sibling tools include login-related tools, but the description gives no hint of prerequisites.

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