xiaohongshu_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool publishes content and suggests using interface mode for observation, but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context for a publishing operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence adds value. The Chinese text is concise and to the point. However, the single-line purpose statement could be slightly more descriptive, and the parameter explanations could be more efficiently integrated rather than listed separately.

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 content publishing tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides basic operational context but lacks important details. The output schema handles return values, but the description doesn't cover authentication requirements, error conditions, or how this tool relates to its siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a publishing operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful parameter context: it clarifies that 'title' is required and has a 40-character limit, 'content' and 'image_paths' are required, image formats supported, and provides guidance on 'headless' mode. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap - 'chrome_path' gets minimal explanation, and there's no detail on parameter interactions or validation rules beyond basic requirements.

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 as '发布小红书内容' (publish Xiaohongshu content), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'xiaohongshu_check_status' and 'xiaohongshu_login' by focusing on content publishing rather than status checking or authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from those siblings beyond the basic function.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it mentions '建议使用有界面模式观察发布过程' (suggest using interface mode to observe the publishing process), this is a technical implementation detail rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether login is required first) or alternatives for different publishing scenarios.

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